This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
A small dose of ‘some stuff still works’ to brighten the weekend:
Our 3 year old has a dead tooth from a fall about 18 months ago. Last weekend he fell off a sofa and knocked it again. We got an emergency dental appointment the next day, a further check up yesterday, at which the dentist said it needed to come out. We chatted it over, agreed to go ahead and got booked in for a same day appointment.
Today he has an unscheduled introduction to the tooth fairy and is right as rain. All free at the point of use, and with a human touch from the dentist that has prompted us to deliver a bunch of flowers on Monday as a thank you.
This of course doesn’t negate the millions (including me) who cannot find an NHS dentist but it makes me proud of this country that we can still offer a genuinely outstanding service to our kids that costs nothing at the point of use.
"The town was poorer and became racially and economically divided, despite all people from all backgrounds being Rochdalians. Race isn’t the true division, poverty is."
Very well put. Almost all racism stems from poverty or division resulting from poverty.
This reminds me of an argument I had with my dad one evening 35 years ago. He was criticising Indian & Pakistani communities in London, that they were living 15 or 20 people to a small house. I responded that it wasn't because they were Indian, it was because they were poor. They weren't choosing to live in such crammed conditions, it was because they couldn't afford anything better.
The reason why I remember this so well is the next morning my dad acknowledged that he had been wrong about this. He had obviously been thinking about it overnight, and as a teenager I was proud to have influenced the politics of my father.
You don't think religious affiliation plays a part?
I think it's a mix.
35 years ago is pretty-much contemporaneous with the Salman Rushdie / Satanic Verses controversy. Did that inform opinions? That was various organisations promoting essentially political causes using religion as a lever.
I think religious affiliation plays a part in the underlying question (eg doctrines about lots of children, perhaps abortion as a sin etc), but political affiliation / politics is an overlay. As does supine politics on the other side,
For an example, in ~2005 when the the 'Mohammed Cartoons" were first published there was no huge controversy - including being published in a tabloid newspaper in Egypt first. The controversy arose when a group of Imams from Denmark went around the Middle East trolling Governments in Islamic countries to stir things up.
It was stirred up by political exploitation polarising and bringing to the front a disagreement which was close to the cultural bone.
Someone remarked on Denmark yesterday evening. In the case of the Motoons, they had a far clearer view on free expression compared to the more craven attitude taken up by UK authorities and organisations.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
"The town was poorer and became racially and economically divided, despite all people from all backgrounds being Rochdalians. Race isn’t the true division, poverty is."
Very well put. Almost all racism stems from poverty or division resulting from poverty.
This reminds me of an argument I had with my dad one evening 35 years ago. He was criticising Indian & Pakistani communities in London, that they were living 15 or 20 people to a small house. I responded that it wasn't because they were Indian, it was because they were poor. They weren't choosing to live in such crammed conditions, it was because they couldn't afford anything better.
The reason why I remember this so well is the next morning my dad acknowledged that he had been wrong about this. He had obviously been thinking about it overnight, and as a teenager I was proud to have influenced the politics of my father.
You don't think religious affiliation plays a part?
Of course it does. Why else have Indians in the UK surged ahead of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis economically over the last 30 years? My family grew up dirt poor in the Westcountry for generations yet never became anti-democracy extremists. What they did do was knuckle down and work hard, so they did better each generation.
Does anybody believe Sunak can get Bradied before the GE? They would need to find a suicide bomber who could unhorse the little shit while being prepared to be PM for just the 4-5 weeks of the campaign after which their political career would be over and they would be an Asda car park trolley shepherd.
Does that tory MP exist? Probably not, therefore Sunak is safe and he can leave the GE as long as he likes.
I don't think having a candidate lined up is a necessary condition to ditch Richi. Some (perhaps many) will think it couldn't get any worse...
But if you want someone shameless enough to apply for the gig, I give you Liz Truss...
Given the candidate would, like Truss, get the post-PM allowances for life, I can imagine plenty of MPs who see the writing on the wall for their own constituency fight jumping at the chance to get a big pension for 4-5 weeks’ work.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
Doesn't your example highlight that there is a structural problem with high-skilled immigration too because it contributes to the bidding-up of things like housing?
You say that, but I think within 10 years people will go to jail for allowing their young children unfettered access to social media and smartphones. (Probably not in the UK).
I work in IT and I would say that there is a great deal to worry about. I have seen the online world grow from the days of USENET.
This is because the “internet” isn’t just a clear, undistorted window on the world. The main paths of access, especially for the young, are social media apps.
There is an internet adage - if something is free, you are the product.
These apps distort the world view they present, deliberately, to outrage, to anger, to enthuse. To drive more clicks.
The radicalisation problem (should) be well known - many such platforms will recommend more aggressive views and media than whatever you are looking at now. This creates a spiral where the viewer “self radicalises” - though it is done to them, in part.
The populist movements, which many here decry, are driven by similar mechanisms. This was brilliantly parodied in Death To 2020 - with the polite, middle class soccer mom who spouts fascism acquired online.
An American friend, with a PhD in Art History from St Andrews and a New Yorker reader, fell down this rabbit hole and ended up a Trump voter.
St Andrews has produced weird right wingers for a long time.
He was a Clinton supporter when he left. Indeed, thought that Clinton was too accommodating to big business on a number of policies.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
Hamas are exceptionally evil and need to be destroyed. The Palestinian protesters are undemocratic shits. But you don't stand up for democracy by abandoning democratic principles of the rule of law. The autocratic mind always rushes to "violence is the answer", but that usually fails. Here in the UK, we need to deal with it by more and longer prison sentences for those breaking the law. Make room for them in prisons by ending drug prohibition.
In Israel, the Israelis would have far more legitimacy to respond to Palestinian attacks if they ended their settlements of the West Bank.
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
I’m a long way from being a Tory, but this is spot on in my view. Such a party would be a fairly formidable force and would, I think, hold power in UK pretty consistently.
I flick through the news channels from time to time. I don't think GB News is the awful thing it's made out to be. Some of the presenters are quite annoying and I don't get how it complies with Ofcom when they give so much space to Tory MPs and Reform/Farage. However it serves a purpose in being prepared to deal with subjects that the BBC/SKY run a mile from e.g trans fundamentalism, antisemitism and ethnic divisions.
With your rather strange obsession with anti semitism have you thought about trying for a job as the Simon Weisenthal Centre?
It is rather shocking that so many Jews no longer feel very safe in Britain, are thinking of leaving and in a culture obsessed with minority rights feel largely abandoned. We also see police afraid to arrest those preaching antisemitic hate for fear of causing a riot whilst at the same time they took down pictures posted of hostages in the name of community cohesion. If you cannot see the double standards/unfairness in all that you are either too blinkered or stupid for us to bother engaging with each other.
At least the police did turn out in force to protect attendees at Tracy Ann Oberman's Merchant Of Venice so I suppose cultural events can continue proceed with a semblance of normality. I've never heard of SWC.
I've acknowledged that but is the problem on the same scale? No.
To be honest, I do not think there is much to be gained here. It is not as if either form of attack is all right provided the other side comes off worse.
Indeed, which is what the Chief Rabbi has said.
I cannot imagine why Frank Booth keeps on repeatedly minimising anti Muslim hatred.
The single tiny positive from the murderous Hamas atrocity and subsequent Netanyahu massacre of the innocents is that on PB, if we had any doubts as to those who might be xenophobic morons, we now have conclusive proof.
"The town was poorer and became racially and economically divided, despite all people from all backgrounds being Rochdalians. Race isn’t the true division, poverty is."
Very well put. Almost all racism stems from poverty or division resulting from poverty.
This reminds me of an argument I had with my dad one evening 35 years ago. He was criticising Indian & Pakistani communities in London, that they were living 15 or 20 people to a small house. I responded that it wasn't because they were Indian, it was because they were poor. They weren't choosing to live in such crammed conditions, it was because they couldn't afford anything better.
The reason why I remember this so well is the next morning my dad acknowledged that he had been wrong about this. He had obviously been thinking about it overnight, and as a teenager I was proud to have influenced the politics of my father.
You don't think religious affiliation plays a part?
Of course it does. Why else have Indians in the UK surged ahead of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis economically over the last 30 years? My family grew up dirt poor in the Westcountry for generations yet never became anti-democracy extremists. What they did do was knuckle down and work hard, so they did better each generation.
You need to look at the finer grain detail than that. Pakistan, for example contains a number of cultures and regions with greatly differing levels of education, wealth and world views. India is in many ways more diverse than Europe.
Does anybody believe Sunak can get Bradied before the GE? They would need to find a suicide bomber who could unhorse the little shit while being prepared to be PM for just the 4-5 weeks of the campaign after which their political career would be over and they would be an Asda car park trolley shepherd.
Does that tory MP exist? Probably not, therefore Sunak is safe and he can leave the GE as long as he likes.
Put like that, surely there are few MPs who would stick their hand up to be PM if only for a month, just for the CV enhancement?
And there's the very small chance they could become a hero of the right by reducing the losses or even pulling off a remarkable victory. If Tory losses are less than expected, they might get to stay on as LOTO even if Labour win.
No shortage of volunteers imo. The issue is few would be able to gather enough support amongst Tory MPs, who have little or nothing to gain from a coup.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
For what it's worth, I think Leon is wrong. I fear that all Israel ..... or at least Netanyahu ..... are doing is acting as Hamas (etc) recruiting agents. I can well imagine a 14 year old Gazan ..... or West Bank ..... lad being willing, indeed anxious, to pick up a gun and revenge his family's wrongs. No-one has yet tried the Middle East equivalent of re-education and denazification. Other than on a very limited scale, anyway.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
Housing seems to be our biggest issue - many of the other problems we face become much more tractable once we find a way to allow under 40s onto the housing ladder and start accumulating some capital.
For a decade, we've been tinkering around with Help to Buy, the First Homes scheme, stamp duty fiddles, even today's crazy suggestion from David Willets of helicoptering £10k to every 30 year old.
But the problem remains one of constrained supply.
Aren't the Tories meant to be good at dealing with supply side stuff? Fixing this surely should be their bread and butter.
The absolute best thing they could do in opposition is to come up with a coherent approach to dealing with the problem, so that they're ready to swoop in at the next election if it turns out that the Labour govt have failed to make much headway in solving it themselves.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
No, my position has hardened as the pro-Palestinians have used Gaza to warp British politics. See the election of Geo Galloway
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
Housing seems to be our biggest issue - many of the other problems we face become much more tractable once we find a way to allow under 40s onto the housing ladder and start accumulating some capital.
For a decade, we've been tinkering around with Help to Buy, the First Homes scheme, stamp duty fiddles, even today's crazy suggestion from David Willets of helicoptering £10k to every 30 year old.
But the problem remains one of constrained supply.
Aren't the Tories meant to be good at dealing with supply side stuff? Fixing this surely should be their bread and butter.
The absolute best thing they could do in opposition is to come up with a coherent approach to dealing with the problem, so that they're ready to swoop in at the next election if it turns out that the Labour govt have failed to make much headway in solving it themselves.
I don’t think it’s just housing. Solve that and we’d still have:
- an ageing increasingly obese population - Shrinking working age population - Less than free trade with our neighbours - Woeful rates of business investment and productivity growth - Ageing public infrastructure - The nefarious effects of social media and smartphones - A rapidly warming climate
Housing is a serious issue worth prioritising but not the silver bullet.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Yes very fair point. I think (one of) our problem(s) is the first sort of centrism you describe.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Liberalism isn't just pragmatism, though. It is a historical philosophy. And too many liberals have rejected major parts of of its beliefs. Liberals back in the day correctly believed that cohesive nation states were necessary for successful societies, rejecting the Habsburg and Ottoman multinational empire model. Now they embrace the EU. They used to strongly believe in the rule of law with effective sanctions. Now they are apologists for rule breaking illegal immigrants and thuggish criminals. They used to be fierce defenders of freedom of speech. Now they justify ever expansive definitions of banned "hate speech".
According to the Telegraph, Rishi yesterday - apparently in response to tge Rochdale by-election - urged Britain to come together against the poisons of right wing extremism and Islamic extremism.
How has he managed to get right wing extremism into this? One of the features of British politics over the past decade has been the notable absence of the far right compared to elsewhere in the west, especially given the conditions which might be expected to give rise to it. It seems to be some sort of shibboleth "but don't forget the far right are just as bad/dangerous/big a threat". They just aren't. Tommy Robinson and 400 drunken idiots are nothing like the same scale of threat as radical Islam. The number of murders carried out by radical Islam over the past two decades must be about 200 times greater than that carried out by the far right. Conflating the two just isn't credible.
There is a steady stream of White, far right wannabe bombers. I think MI5 must be running the website they download instructions from since they are generally charged with preparing rather than doing. This from Tuesday:-
Far-right extremism occupies about a quarter of MI5/police time, despite the lack of bombs and rampages.
I come to the unhappy conclusion that white-British people are just useless at terrorism, and like other parts of the economy extremists from overseas have filled the gap.
Yet another symptom of poor educational standards (particularly Chemistry) in UK schools.
New Labour's fault for banning the Anarchist Cookbook, clearly...
That got officially banned? I think every student in the early days of the internet had a copy of it, just because.
There are many who believe that the Anarchists Cookbook was a plant by American police agencies, trying to get amateur terrorists to kill and maim themselves.
The most shocking thing about the Doctors Plot (the attempts to bomb various things around Britain, including Glasgow airport) was that a group of supposedly educated doctors thought that packing a car with cans of petrol and setting off road flares would explode Jerry Bruckheimer style.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
You are either incredibly stupid or just a disgusting troll. You do not need paragraph one to achieve paragraph two.
The UK police regularly beat the living shit out of vaguely right wing or slightly pro faux hunting or possibly in favour of white people protestors. I have seen it with my own eyes. I saw the two tier policing at the BLM protests. Leave the left alone, “pretend there is a major threat from the right” - actually a bunch of pathetic skinheads - beat THEM up for the TV cameras. This is what happens
Meanwhile 300,000 lefties and Islamists march through London and physically intimidate our democracy and make our MPs wear stab vests and kill MPs and project genocidal slogans on Big Ben
That is what Sunak was feebly trying to say, and he is right. We need to turn the tables. At this stage we either defend British democracy or we are overrun with Islamism and leftism and we are vanquished entirely. This is the Gates of Vienna
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
No, my position has hardened as the pro-Palestinians have used Gaza to warp British politics. See the election of Geo Galloway
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
I do love a barny at this temperature, and congratulate you on the calibration of your response - you haven’t escalated things but have met my personal attack with another of the same intensity. Good work sir.
But you’re still posting nonsense. The bit in bold is the only part I can stoop to responding to. It is precisely our almost-unqualified support for Israel that has led to the warping of our politics.
We have a legitimate role as a global player to act as some sort of referee. But nothing riles up the fans more than a bent referee who is clearly shilling for one side.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
You are either incredibly stupid or just a disgusting troll. You do not need paragraph one to achieve paragraph two.
The UK police regularly beat the living shit out of vaguely right wing or slightly pro faux hunting or possibly in favour of white people protestors. I have seen it with my own eyes. I saw the two tier policing at the BLM protests. Leave the left alone, “pretend there is a major threat from the right” - actually a bunch of pathetic skinheads - beat THEM up for the TV cameras. This is what happens
Meanwhile 300,000 lefties and Islamists march through London and physically intimidate our democracy and make our MPs wear stab vests and kill MPs and project genocidal slogans on Big Ben
That is what Sunak was feebly trying to say, and he is right. We need to turn the tables. At this stage we either defend British democracy or we are overrun with Islamism and leftism and we are vanquished entirely. This is the Gates of Vienna
You don't believe that shite so there is no point engaging with you
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Yes very fair point. I think (one of) our problem(s) is the first sort of centrism you describe.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
Strategy vs tactics too. We’re back to the Kissinger advice to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Governments have often been successful when they’ve done radical things (left or right or liberal) while sounding reassuringly conservative (with a small c). Labour in the 60s and Blair then Cameron in the 2000s managed this with a range of social policies. Thatcher and Major managed it with EU integration. And despite her noisy blunders early and late in her tenure Thatcher also got big bang in 86 and the first privatisations done in an unthreatening manner.
What we’ve had recently is a string of post 2015 governments speaking very loudly while carrying a little twig. How else to describe our policies on: Rwanda, levelling up, industrial strategy, cutting crime, trade negotiations. A tendency epitomised by ministers like Kemi Badenoch.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
You are either incredibly stupid or just a disgusting troll. You do not need paragraph one to achieve paragraph two.
The UK police regularly beat the living shit out of vaguely right wing or slightly pro faux hunting or possibly in favour of white people protestors. I have seen it with my own eyes. I saw the two tier policing at the BLM protests. Leave the left alone, “pretend there is a major threat from the right” - actually a bunch of pathetic skinheads - beat THEM up for the TV cameras. This is what happens
Meanwhile 300,000 lefties and Islamists march through London and physically intimidate our democracy and make our MPs wear stab vests and kill MPs and project genocidal slogans on Big Ben
That is what Sunak was feebly trying to say, and he is right. We need to turn the tables. At this stage we either defend British democracy or we are overrun with Islamism and leftism and we are vanquished entirely. This is the Gates of Vienna
You’re a bawhair away from calling for the impalement of random Muslims.
Is the west just going to keep bleating and do fxck all about the IDF enforced famine in Gaza .
I find it hard to believe that anyone with a shred of humanity could support the starvation of children. The best recruiting sergeant for anti -Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet , coupled with the IDF who seem happy to just slaughter people whose only crime was a desperate attempt to get to aid supplies .
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
What the core of centrism comprises is an interesting question, especially as most voters seem to occupy that space, and the time will come in due course when the Tories return to the fact that they need to get back there, whatever it is.
It seems to me to have three elements, whose contents can change. There has to be an underlying philosophy, maybe liberalism is the best word, though in its Victorian moral and not party politics sense.
It is also Burkean and anti-Napoleonic in the sense that it takes for granted that we start the present moment from where we actually are and not from any sort of ideal or idea. There are no 'Year Noughts' no revolutions and no change for the sake of change.
Thirdly it is open to gradualist revolutions both through governance intervention and from the operation, under the rule of law, of a free market in a free society. In particular it aspires to maximising the (impossible to complete) aim of equality of opportunity.
All three have been having a rough time in recent years. I have hopes of Sir Keir, and of the Tories coming home in due course.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
No, my position has hardened as the pro-Palestinians have used Gaza to warp British politics. See the election of Geo Galloway
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
I do love a barny at this temperature, and congratulate you on the calibration of your response - you haven’t escalated things but have met my personal attack with another of the same intensity. Good work sir.
But you’re still posting nonsense. The bit in bold is the only part I can stoop to responding to. It is precisely our almost-unqualified support for Israel that has led to the warping of our politics.
We have a legitimate role as a global player to act as some sort of referee. But nothing riles up the fans more than a bent referee who is clearly shilling for one side.
I do not salute your comments: you are a wanky but well educated fellow-traveller enabling this shit which will, ultimately, destroy liberal democracy..You should be ashamed. But you are not, because you have convinced yourself you are basically “on the right side of progressive history”
At best you probably have “moments” when you stare into the abyss and think “fuck, what if I am wrong”.” At worst, you aren’t even smart enough for THAT
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Yes very fair point. I think (one of) our problem(s) is the first sort of centrism you describe.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
Strategy vs tactics too. We’re back to the Kissinger advice to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Governments have often been successful when they’ve done radical things (left or right or liberal) while sounding reassuringly conservative (with a small c). Labour in the 60s and Blair then Cameron in the 2000s managed this with a range of social policies. Thatcher and Major managed it with EU integration. And despite her noisy blunders early and late in her tenure Thatcher also got big bang in 86 and the first privatisations done in an unthreatening manner.
What we’ve had recently is a string of post 2015 governments speaking very loudly while carrying a little twig. How else to describe our policies on: Rwanda, levelling up, industrial strategy, cutting crime, trade negotiations. A tendency epitomised by ministers like Kemi Badenoch.
Which (and I feel like an idiot for even saying this) is what I still hope, against all available evidence, Starmer will do. Anyone who could tolerate being in Corbyn’s cabinet for so long must surely have some radical stuff up his sleeve.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Liberalism isn't just pragmatism, though. It is a historical philosophy. And too many liberals have rejected major parts of of its beliefs. Liberals back in the day correctly believed that cohesive nation states were necessary for successful societies, rejecting the Habsburg and Ottoman multinational empire model. Now they embrace the EU. They used to strongly believe in the rule of law with effective sanctions. Now they are apologists for rule breaking illegal immigrants and thuggish criminals. They used to be fierce defenders of freedom of speech. Now they justify ever expansive definitions of banned "hate speech".
I think you’re using the modern American meaning of “liberal” as left wing. And somewhat off the original point which was definitions of centrism.
Liberalism is a very clear long established philosophy but pragmatism (meaning in particular evidenced based decision making and emphasis on what works) is a long established facet of liberalism.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
No, my position has hardened as the pro-Palestinians have used Gaza to warp British politics. See the election of Geo Galloway
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
You been going around hissing at woman in burkhas again now you back in London?
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Yes very fair point. I think (one of) our problem(s) is the first sort of centrism you describe.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
Strategy vs tactics too. We’re back to the Kissinger advice to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Governments have often been successful when they’ve done radical things (left or right or liberal) while sounding reassuringly conservative (with a small c). Labour in the 60s and Blair then Cameron in the 2000s managed this with a range of social policies. Thatcher and Major managed it with EU integration. And despite her noisy blunders early and late in her tenure Thatcher also got big bang in 86 and the first privatisations done in an unthreatening manner.
What we’ve had recently is a string of post 2015 governments speaking very loudly while carrying a little twig. How else to describe our policies on: Rwanda, levelling up, industrial strategy, cutting crime, trade negotiations. A tendency epitomised by ministers like Kemi Badenoch.
Is the west just going to keep bleating and do fxck all about the IDF enforced famine in Gaza .
I find it hard to believe that anyone with a shred of humanity could support the starvation of children. The best recruiting sergeant for anti -Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet , coupled with the IDF who seem happy to just slaughter people whose only crime was a desperate attempt to get to aid supplies .
I fear the IDF was not happy at the slaughter, which may have been due to a bunch of conscripted kids panicking, which triggered further panic. In any case, it cannot be undone.
We must hope President Biden's diplomacy succeeds, not least because it is the only game in town.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
No, my position has hardened as the pro-Palestinians have used Gaza to warp British politics. See the election of Geo Galloway
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
I do love a barny at this temperature, and congratulate you on the calibration of your response - you haven’t escalated things but have met my personal attack with another of the same intensity. Good work sir.
But you’re still posting nonsense. The bit in bold is the only part I can stoop to responding to. It is precisely our almost-unqualified support for Israel that has led to the warping of our politics.
We have a legitimate role as a global player to act as some sort of referee. But nothing riles up the fans more than a bent referee who is clearly shilling for one side.
I do not salute your comments: you are a wanky but well educated fellow-traveller enabling this shit which will, ultimately, destroy liberal democracy..You should be ashamed. But you are not, because you have convinced yourself you are basically “on the right side of progressive history”
At best you probably have “moments” when you stare into the abyss and think “fuck, what if I am wrong”.” At worst, you aren’t even smart enough for THAT
How 'predatory' Wall Street landlords are pricing young Brits out of the housing market by swooping in and buying newbuild family homes ... Leaf Living bought 1,500 family houses in the UK last year. Under Blackstone's ownership, Leaf Living and Sage Homes have built around 13,500 homes in the UK.
At Cressing estate near Braintree, Essex, more than a quarter of the properties were snapped up by Leaf Living for a sum believed to be around £2million.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Yes very fair point. I think (one of) our problem(s) is the first sort of centrism you describe.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
Strategy vs tactics too. We’re back to the Kissinger advice to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Governments have often been successful when they’ve done radical things (left or right or liberal) while sounding reassuringly conservative (with a small c). Labour in the 60s and Blair then Cameron in the 2000s managed this with a range of social policies. Thatcher and Major managed it with EU integration. And despite her noisy blunders early and late in her tenure Thatcher also got big bang in 86 and the first privatisations done in an unthreatening manner.
What we’ve had recently is a string of post 2015 governments speaking very loudly while carrying a little twig. How else to describe our policies on: Rwanda, levelling up, industrial strategy, cutting crime, trade negotiations. A tendency epitomised by ministers like Kemi Badenoch.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Liberalism isn't just pragmatism, though. It is a historical philosophy. And too many liberals have rejected major parts of of its beliefs. Liberals back in the day correctly believed that cohesive nation states were necessary for successful societies, rejecting the Habsburg and Ottoman multinational empire model. Now they embrace the EU. They used to strongly believe in the rule of law with effective sanctions. Now they are apologists for rule breaking illegal immigrants and thuggish criminals. They used to be fierce defenders of freedom of speech. Now they justify ever expansive definitions of banned "hate speech".
I think you’re using the modern American meaning of “liberal” as left wing. And somewhat off the original point which was definitions of centrism.
Liberalism is a very clear long established philosophy but pragmatism (meaning in particular evidenced based decision making and emphasis on what works) is a long established facet of liberalism.
No, I am talking about British liberals. They are the ones that were ardent Eurointegrationists, that don't have any policies to stop the boats, that always argue against prison for criminals.
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
Housing seems to be our biggest issue - many of the other problems we face become much more tractable once we find a way to allow under 40s onto the housing ladder and start accumulating some capital.
For a decade, we've been tinkering around with Help to Buy, the First Homes scheme, stamp duty fiddles, even today's crazy suggestion from David Willets of helicoptering £10k to every 30 year old.
But the problem remains one of constrained supply.
Aren't the Tories meant to be good at dealing with supply side stuff? Fixing this surely should be their bread and butter.
The absolute best thing they could do in opposition is to come up with a coherent approach to dealing with the problem, so that they're ready to swoop in at the next election if it turns out that the Labour govt have failed to make much headway in solving it themselves.
I don’t think it’s just housing. Solve that and we’d still have:
- an ageing increasingly obese population - Shrinking working age population - Less than free trade with our neighbours - Woeful rates of business investment and productivity growth - Ageing public infrastructure - The nefarious effects of social media and smartphones - A rapidly warming climate
Housing is a serious issue worth prioritising but not the silver bullet.
Agree that sorting affordable housing isn't a complete answer to our problems. But it's a good place to start, for a couple of reasons.
First is that the solution is broadly known; build more of the damn things. That's not easy, sure, but it's double.
The other is that, unless house prices are sorted, solving the other problems with our economy will just allow landlords and house sellers to hack up their prices and swallow any gains the economy makes.
It's probably the best "do one good thing today" the government has to free up more steps tomorrow.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
You are either incredibly stupid or just a disgusting troll. You do not need paragraph one to achieve paragraph two.
The UK police regularly beat the living shit out of vaguely right wing or slightly pro faux hunting or possibly in favour of white people protestors. I have seen it with my own eyes. I saw the two tier policing at the BLM protests. Leave the left alone, “pretend there is a major threat from the right” - actually a bunch of pathetic skinheads - beat THEM up for the TV cameras. This is what happens
Meanwhile 300,000 lefties and Islamists march through London and physically intimidate our democracy and make our MPs wear stab vests and kill MPs and project genocidal slogans on Big Ben
That is what Sunak was feebly trying to say, and he is right. We need to turn the tables. At this stage we either defend British democracy or we are overrun with Islamism and leftism and we are vanquished entirely. This is the Gates of Vienna
You don't believe that shite so there is no point engaging with you
Never mistake your enemies. I absolutely believe this “shite”
This is what Sunak was trying to say he just hasn’t got the cullions to say it. Hopefully we will see elections in mainland Europe, or elsewhere, where there are politicians quite brave and smart enough to say this stuff out loud
I think it is coming and I thing the tide is now against you and your despicable, cowardly ilk
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
No, my position has hardened as the pro-Palestinians have used Gaza to warp British politics. See the election of Geo Galloway
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
You been going around hissing at woman in burkhas again now you back in London?
"With us or against us" framings are almost always designed to obscure logic and reasoning. Hamas are unbelievably evil. Fatah and Israel are still awful immoral shits. Screw all of them and their savage, medieval religions. The best thing we should do is not get involved. Stick to situations like Ukraine and Hong Kong where there are actually decent good guys. The Middle East is perpetually doomed.
Councils forced to sell the family silver, often following failed property investments. Older PBers will remember when the City had to unwind interest rate swap contracts involving local authorities who were in far over their heads. There should be a similar review of what falls within councils' competence.
How 'predatory' Wall Street landlords are pricing young Brits out of the housing market by swooping in and buying newbuild family homes ... Leaf Living bought 1,500 family houses in the UK last year. Under Blackstone's ownership, Leaf Living and Sage Homes have built around 13,500 homes in the UK.
At Cressing estate near Braintree, Essex, more than a quarter of the properties were snapped up by Leaf Living for a sum believed to be around £2million.
The solution to this is simple: build a ton of houses. The only reason US investment groups are buying UK real estate is because they expect further price appreciation thanks to the UK housing shortages which we show no sign whatsoever of doing anything to solve.
O/T but encouraged by @Leon earlier. My first trip abroad, solo, since I was a student, a long time ago. No reason other than I've had a boring 8 months and crap last couple. Definitely not matching the class of lounge frequented by some other posters but my excuse is that Spoons have real ale...
No dog for scale, she's at home with my daughters.
O/T but encouraged by @Leon earlier. My first trip abroad, solo, since I was a student, a long time ago. No reason other than I've had a boring 8 months and crap last couple. Definitely not matching the class of lounge frequented by some other posters but my excuse is that Spoons have real ale...
No dog for scale, she's at home with my daughters.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Liberalism isn't just pragmatism, though. It is a historical philosophy. And too many liberals have rejected major parts of of its beliefs. Liberals back in the day correctly believed that cohesive nation states were necessary for successful societies, rejecting the Habsburg and Ottoman multinational empire model. Now they embrace the EU. They used to strongly believe in the rule of law with effective sanctions. Now they are apologists for rule breaking illegal immigrants and thuggish criminals. They used to be fierce defenders of freedom of speech. Now they justify ever expansive definitions of banned "hate speech".
I think you’re using the modern American meaning of “liberal” as left wing. And somewhat off the original point which was definitions of centrism.
Liberalism is a very clear long established philosophy but pragmatism (meaning in particular evidenced based decision making and emphasis on what works) is a long established facet of liberalism.
No, I am talking about British liberals. They are the ones that were ardent Eurointegrationists, that don't have any policies to stop the boats, that always argue against prison for criminals.
But at least they don’t define their imagined political enemies by the strawiest of strawmen.
The Tories are really struggling to form a clear narrative for conservative philosphy for a world in which inequality means a general pro-capitalist "freedom" message falls flat.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
Housing seems to be our biggest issue - many of the other problems we face become much more tractable once we find a way to allow under 40s onto the housing ladder and start accumulating some capital.
For a decade, we've been tinkering around with Help to Buy, the First Homes scheme, stamp duty fiddles, even today's crazy suggestion from David Willets of helicoptering £10k to every 30 year old.
But the problem remains one of constrained supply.
Aren't the Tories meant to be good at dealing with supply side stuff? Fixing this surely should be their bread and butter.
The absolute best thing they could do in opposition is to come up with a coherent approach to dealing with the problem, so that they're ready to swoop in at the next election if it turns out that the Labour govt have failed to make much headway in solving it themselves.
I don’t think it’s just housing. Solve that and we’d still have:
- an ageing increasingly obese population - Shrinking working age population - Less than free trade with our neighbours - Woeful rates of business investment and productivity growth - Ageing public infrastructure - The nefarious effects of social media and smartphones - A rapidly warming climate
Housing is a serious issue worth prioritising but not the silver bullet.
Agree that sorting affordable housing isn't a complete answer to our problems. But it's a good place to start, for a couple of reasons.
First is that the solution is broadly known; build more of the damn things. That's not easy, sure, but it's double.
The other is that, unless house prices are sorted, solving the other problems with our economy will just allow landlords and house sellers to hack up their prices and swallow any gains the economy makes.
It's probably the best "do one good thing today" the government has to free up more steps tomorrow.
Which just brings us back round to the same old problem: a critical mass of voters loathes development on two counts. Firstly they go mental at the suggestion of having houses built within a hundred miles of them (urbanisation/spoils our view/local infrastructure can't cope/will affect our house price, etc etc.) Secondly, scarcity suits them because it inflates the value of their own asset.
We know that nimbies are legion, politicians are scared witless of them and their effects are real. In one of the neighbouring districts in last year's locals, the Tories were turfed out en masse at the end of the district nearest London, and survived at the other end. This was entirely the product of a Nimby revolt against proposed housing developments.
A Labour Government will be just as frightened of the wrath of these people as the current one, and newly elected Labour MPs will be just as desperate to thwart building in their patches as the sitting Tory ones are right now.
Existing owners, when threatened by new housing, will more often than not revolt and fight tooth and nail to stop it. The will to fight these campaigners, or to legislate to pull their teeth, is usually lacking (witness the abolition of housing targets that permitted a slew of relieved councillors to do away with the bulk of development in their streams.) This makes it impossible to construct enough homes to keep up with what is in any case runaway population growth. The situation is quite hopeless.
This analysis is spot on. Post GE the tories will have to pivot to centre right millenials, which will be pro eu. There is no way around it. And the eu hating pensioners will seep to the toxic nostalgia of reform. Splitting that off is going to hurt for 2-3 terms for the tories. But it has to happen. I think this shows that brexit is done for. Brexit was also largely a boomer project. But it isn't sustainable as a political platform.
Pro EU centre right under 50s are less than 10% of the electorate. Target them and reject pensioners and Leave voters and the Tories won't be heading for government again they will be making Farage and Reform the main opposition to Labour
Do you win elections by targeting existing groups who probably support you, or do you win elections by making a case that persuades people to come over to your position? Under 50s who might be persuaded by a One Nation, more internationalist Toryism are a lot more than 10%.
I think @hyufd’s post reveals perhaps the biggest challenge to the Tories, nay to political parties of all stripe. It’s a deep belief that things are getting worse, and the only chance to win is to arrest that negative trend by playing to existing prejudices, rather than to argue for a vision that is positive, radical or new and to bring people with you.
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
I agree, although Singapore-on-Thames is a non-starter.And, ATM, Starmer doesn't strike me as 'bold', although once he's got his hands on government he may surprise.
There are multiple types of “centrism”.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
Yes very fair point. I think (one of) our problem(s) is the first sort of centrism you describe.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
Strategy vs tactics too. We’re back to the Kissinger advice to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Governments have often been successful when they’ve done radical things (left or right or liberal) while sounding reassuringly conservative (with a small c). Labour in the 60s and Blair then Cameron in the 2000s managed this with a range of social policies. Thatcher and Major managed it with EU integration. And despite her noisy blunders early and late in her tenure Thatcher also got big bang in 86 and the first privatisations done in an unthreatening manner.
What we’ve had recently is a string of post 2015 governments speaking very loudly while carrying a little twig. How else to describe our policies on: Rwanda, levelling up, industrial strategy, cutting crime, trade negotiations. A tendency epitomised by ministers like Kemi Badenoch.
Centrism being a soft, comforting, 'there there' way of getting where an undefined cadre of movers and shakers wanted us to get to anyway is a large part of the problem. What if 'where we want to go' isn't a very good place? I don't particularly want to be standing on the brink of World War 3 (where we constantly told we are), eviscerating what is left of our economy with green levies so that we can 'set an example', and suffering the highest tax burden since WW2. The centrists are now the real loonies by any dispassionate long term assessment, and they've become the loonies by failing to exercise any form of moral courage for the past 70 years.
If Sunak means this, we need to start beating the living shit out of pro-Palestine protestors. Enough now
Israel is right to defend itself, Hamas must be extirpated
I would flag this, only I understand that’s not really what the flag is meant for. The two posts I’ve read of yours this afternoon are worthless bile. Stop ramping up your rhetoric simply for attention, it’s pathetic.
As Everyone on this site knows Leon and his several aliases are congenital liars. Why anyone bothers to engage with him is one of the great mysteries of this site. He's a self obsessed charlatan which makes him a perfect writer for the Spectator but not for PB where standards are usually higher
Comments
It’s why, for all that I don’t share his politics, I think @Luckyguy1983 was correct the other day to decry centrism. We need to do something bold as a country, be that selling a new vision of ever closer union centred around an EU army to counteract the rise of authoritarian regimes, taking risks to invest in green tech, or becoming Singapore on Thames if that’s your preferred flavour. Personally I’d advocate a bold move away from shareholder capitalism towards stakeholder capitalism.
Such anti conservative thinking is risky, and could be disastrous. But our current trajectory isn’t sustainable either.
Michael Howard used to say that one person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty, but that is increasingly not the case. When you have a bunch of largely inelastic goods like Russell Group degrees or decent sized houses, then inequality means rich people bid the price of those things up dramatically and the lower middle income get priced out.
And the inequality problem has been compounded by the fact that endless financial speculation activity to fund the state turned out to be unsustainable. We then tried to fill the gap with mass immigration, but so much of that was low skilled it just ended up increasing the problem over the medium term.
The Tories of course will never have a future if they just become left wing lite, with a view of tax the rich to pay for everything. But they need to develop a philosphy of making capitalism work. The answer of that of course means increasing productivity growth. That needs to come from an Irish IDA style dedicated sector by sector productivity focus, a conservative message of increasing work ethic in schools, and better policy to incentivize investment.
There also needs to be a revisiting of helping people trying to find their feet in their 20s and early 30s. Currently that group is massively held back by student loan repayments and high rents.
Our 3 year old has a dead tooth from a fall about 18 months ago. Last weekend he fell off a sofa and knocked it again. We got an emergency dental appointment the next day, a further check up yesterday, at which the dentist said it needed to come out. We chatted it over, agreed to go ahead and got booked in for a same day appointment.
Today he has an unscheduled introduction to the tooth fairy and is right as rain. All free at the point of use, and with a human touch from the dentist that has prompted us to deliver a bunch of flowers on Monday as a thank you.
This of course doesn’t negate the millions (including me) who cannot find an NHS dentist but it makes me proud of this country that we can still offer a genuinely outstanding service to our kids that costs nothing at the point of use.
35 years ago is pretty-much contemporaneous with the Salman Rushdie / Satanic Verses controversy. Did that inform opinions? That was various organisations promoting essentially political causes using religion as a lever.
I think religious affiliation plays a part in the underlying question (eg doctrines about lots of children, perhaps abortion as a sin etc), but political affiliation / politics is an overlay. As does supine politics on the other side,
For an example, in ~2005 when the the 'Mohammed Cartoons" were first published there was no huge controversy - including being published in a tabloid newspaper in Egypt first. The controversy arose when a group of Imams from Denmark went around the Middle East trolling Governments in Islamic countries to stir things up.
It was stirred up by political exploitation polarising and bringing to the front a disagreement which was close to the cultural bone.
Someone remarked on Denmark yesterday evening. In the case of the Motoons, they had a far clearer view on free expression compared to the more craven attitude taken up by UK authorities and organisations.
In Israel, the Israelis would have far more legitimacy to respond to Palestinian attacks if they ended their settlements of the West Bank.
No-one has yet tried the Middle East equivalent of re-education and denazification. Other than on a very limited scale, anyway.
One is as described, a sort of reflexive triangulation. It can be a force for stasis and stagnation, because it shies away from difficult decisions. But I don’t think it’s always a bad thing if in essence it’s about achieving progress without spooking the electorate, and taking people with you on the journey. We’ve seen that work well in social policy and indeed on environmental regulation - it’s when the latter overshoots what people are ready for that it generates a backlash. Blair managed that sort of centrism quite deftly.
Another meaning of centrism is as a newish description of an old phenomenon: liberalism. That’s not about triangulation, it’s about using evidence laced with a sense of what’s achievable to make political decisions, rather than grounding them in left or right ideology. Pragmatic liberalism may well reject both left and right ideologies, as it did over Brexit and does now on both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine’s case through some of the more full throated antipathy to Russia, in Gaza’s case with a balanced attitude to both sides grounded not in triangulation but in observation of what’s going on.
For a decade, we've been tinkering around with Help to Buy, the First Homes scheme, stamp duty fiddles, even today's crazy suggestion from David Willets of helicoptering £10k to every 30 year old.
But the problem remains one of constrained supply.
Aren't the Tories meant to be good at dealing with supply side stuff? Fixing this surely should be their bread and butter.
The absolute best thing they could do in opposition is to come up with a coherent approach to dealing with the problem, so that they're ready to swoop in at the next election if it turns out that the Labour govt have failed to make much headway in solving it themselves.
We must now support Israel to do what it must. The world is dividing, It is them or us
I would flag your pathetic comments for stupidity - and inability to extrapolate and understand this - but I don’t think that is what the flag thing is meant for. On that, alone, we are agreed
- an ageing increasingly obese population
- Shrinking working age population
- Less than free trade with our neighbours
- Woeful rates of business investment and productivity growth
- Ageing public infrastructure
- The nefarious effects of social media and smartphones
- A rapidly warming climate
Housing is a serious issue worth prioritising but not the silver bullet.
I don’t subscribe to the second sort but can see it is needed to translate a bold vision into something that can succeed within a democratic system cf Cummings who for all his manifest faults had a (probably correct) bold vision of reform in the civil service. But that reform never would have worked because he envisioned it being too quick and complete for it to bring people along with it.
The most shocking thing about the Doctors Plot (the attempts to bomb various things around Britain, including Glasgow airport) was that a group of supposedly educated doctors thought that packing a car with cans of petrol and setting off road flares would explode Jerry Bruckheimer style.
Meanwhile 300,000 lefties and Islamists march through London and physically intimidate our democracy and make our MPs wear stab vests and kill MPs and project genocidal slogans on Big Ben
That is what Sunak was feebly trying to say, and he is right. We need to turn the tables. At this stage we either defend British democracy or we are overrun with Islamism and leftism and we are vanquished entirely. This is the Gates of Vienna
But you’re still posting nonsense. The bit in bold is the only part I can stoop to responding to. It is precisely our almost-unqualified support for Israel that has led to the warping of our politics.
We have a legitimate role as a global player to act as some sort of referee. But nothing riles up the fans more than a bent referee who is clearly shilling for one side.
Governments have often been successful when they’ve done radical things (left or right or liberal) while sounding reassuringly conservative (with a small c). Labour in the 60s and Blair then Cameron in the 2000s managed this with a range of social policies. Thatcher and Major managed it with EU integration. And despite her noisy blunders early and late in her tenure Thatcher also got big bang in 86 and the first privatisations done in an unthreatening manner.
What we’ve had recently is a string of post 2015 governments speaking very loudly while carrying a little twig. How else to describe our policies on: Rwanda, levelling up, industrial strategy, cutting crime, trade negotiations. A tendency epitomised by ministers like Kemi Badenoch.
I find it hard to believe that anyone with a shred of humanity could support the starvation of children. The best recruiting sergeant for anti -Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet , coupled with the IDF who seem happy to just slaughter people whose only crime was a desperate attempt to get to aid supplies .
It seems to me to have three elements, whose contents can change. There has to be an underlying philosophy, maybe liberalism is the best word, though in its Victorian moral and not party politics sense.
It is also Burkean and anti-Napoleonic in the sense that it takes for granted that we start the present moment from where we actually are and not from any sort of ideal or idea. There are no 'Year Noughts' no revolutions and no change for the sake of change.
Thirdly it is open to gradualist revolutions both through governance intervention and from the operation, under the rule of law, of a free market in a free society. In particular it aspires to maximising the (impossible to complete) aim of equality of opportunity.
All three have been having a rough time in recent years. I have hopes of Sir Keir, and of the Tories coming home in due course.
At best you probably have “moments” when you stare into the abyss and think “fuck, what if I am wrong”.” At worst, you aren’t even smart enough for THAT
Meh
Liberalism is a very clear long established philosophy but pragmatism (meaning in particular evidenced based decision making and emphasis on what works) is a long established facet of liberalism.
We must hope President Biden's diplomacy succeeds, not least because it is the only game in town.
...
Leaf Living bought 1,500 family houses in the UK last year. Under Blackstone's ownership, Leaf Living and Sage Homes have built around 13,500 homes in the UK.
At Cressing estate near Braintree, Essex, more than a quarter of the properties were snapped up by Leaf Living for a sum believed to be around £2million.
Now the homes are being rented out for more than £2,000-a-month, raking in more than £1.4million every year.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13135727/Now-theyre-coming-house-predatory-Wall-Street-landlords-pricing-young-Brits-housing-market-swooping-buying-newbuild-family-homes.html
First is that the solution is broadly known; build more of the damn things. That's not easy, sure, but it's double.
The other is that, unless house prices are sorted, solving the other problems with our economy will just allow landlords and house sellers to hack up their prices and swallow any gains the economy makes.
It's probably the best "do one good thing today" the government has to free up more steps tomorrow.
This is what Sunak was trying to say he just hasn’t got the cullions to say it. Hopefully we will see elections in mainland Europe, or elsewhere, where there are politicians quite brave and smart enough to say this stuff out loud
I think it is coming and I thing the tide is now against you and your despicable, cowardly ilk
Poor little adrenaline junkie is bored.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68439624
Councils forced to sell the family silver, often following failed property investments. Older PBers will remember when the City had to unwind interest rate swap contracts involving local authorities who were in far over their heads. There should be a similar review of what falls within councils' competence.
O/T but encouraged by @Leon earlier. My first trip abroad, solo, since I was a student, a long time ago. No reason other than I've had a boring 8 months and crap last couple. Definitely not matching the class of lounge frequented by some other posters but my excuse is that Spoons have real ale...
No dog for scale, she's at home with my daughters.
We know that nimbies are legion, politicians are scared witless of them and their effects are real. In one of the neighbouring districts in last year's locals, the Tories were turfed out en masse at the end of the district nearest London, and survived at the other end. This was entirely the product of a Nimby revolt against proposed housing developments.
A Labour Government will be just as frightened of the wrath of these people as the current one, and newly elected Labour MPs will be just as desperate to thwart building in their patches as the sitting Tory ones are right now.
Existing owners, when threatened by new housing, will more often than not revolt and fight tooth and nail to stop it. The will to fight these campaigners, or to legislate to pull their teeth, is usually lacking (witness the abolition of housing targets that permitted a slew of relieved councillors to do away with the bulk of development in their streams.) This makes it impossible to construct enough homes to keep up with what is in any case runaway population growth. The situation is quite hopeless.