Could Raynergate cause problems for Labour in the council elections .
Not sure when the police are due to finish their review . Or will they hold off from going public until after the elections .
It seems unlikely. If it were Starmer maybe, but I’d be interested in the usual test of how many of the public know who she is, or could put a name to a photo.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Labour could be utterly useless and still be better than the current lot.
There's always room to get *much* worse; look at (say) Russia politically, Venezuela politically and fiscally, or South Africa for everything. It's feasible that we'll look back at Sunak's government with a certain fondness.
This is a Government that has created a 2-3 year gap in train orders resulting in the Derby (and probably the Newton Aycliffe) manufacturers running out of work. It's then trying to pretend that the 20,000+ jobs that will be lost has nothing to do with them....
I doubt anyone clueful will look back at this Government other than the worst Government of their lifetime...
Hang on - you can easily 'blame' Blair's government for that, and the disastrous decision to award Hitachi a train-building contract in 2009.
I really hope Derby survives. 175 years of history should matter when their rivals are fly-by-nights.
Given that Hitachi was founded in 1910, that's a tiny bit unfair. They built the first Japanese main line electric loco 100 years ago.
All they built at Newton Aycliffe was a final assembly plant for parts made in Japan. Their presence in the train building market was only ever going to be temporary. And given the (ahem) interesting way the contract was given, and the problems the trains have had, if they go - good riddance.
In I didn't realise that there was a war going on news...
BBC:
The military regime which seized power in Myanmar three years ago has suffered another big defeat, this time on the eastern border with Thailand.
Troops had suffered weeks of attacks by ethnic Karen insurgents, allied with other anti-coup forces.
Hundreds of troops guarding the vital border town of Myawaddy have now agreed to surrender.
The Burmese internal war with the Karen and Shan states has been going on for over 50 years.
It's been quite brutal lately - see also Sudan. But then the UK media is 98% Gaza, 1% Ukraine, 0.5% $random_euro_news, 0.5% the rest of the world. Though give it another month or two and we can swap Gaza for Trump/Biden I suppose.
In I didn't realise that there was a war going on news...
BBC:
The military regime which seized power in Myanmar three years ago has suffered another big defeat, this time on the eastern border with Thailand.
Troops had suffered weeks of attacks by ethnic Karen insurgents, allied with other anti-coup forces.
Hundreds of troops guarding the vital border town of Myawaddy have now agreed to surrender.
The Burmese internal war with the Karen and Shan states has been going on for over 50 years.
It's been quite brutal lately - see also Sudan. But then the UK media is 98% Gaza, 1% Ukraine, 0.5% $random_euro_news, 0.5% the rest of the world. Though give it another month or two and we can swap Gaza for Trump/Biden I suppose.
I would cheerfully do so, but I'm not sure the Palestinians would accept the trade.
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
Even by Rozzer's standards, it was rather... shrill, wasn't it?
Definitely a change of tone, usually it's good old Andrew sticking up for Romford, helping somebody with something, Union Jack, isn't Brexit wonderful and let's declare UDI from London but this one does seem more desperate than usual.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
What makes you think that The Man Himself leafleted your humble abode? Because at least one of the leaflets had "sorry I missed you" written on it with his signature?
Which does NOT (necessarily) mean that HE was the one who delivered it . . . or even wrote the postscript.
At least based on my own humble experience as a canvasser.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Labour could be utterly useless and still be better than the current lot.
There's always room to get *much* worse; look at (say) Russia politically, Venezuela politically and fiscally, or South Africa for everything. It's feasible that we'll look back at Sunak's government with a certain fondness.
This is a Government that has created a 2-3 year gap in train orders resulting in the Derby (and probably the Newton Aycliffe) manufacturers running out of work. It's then trying to pretend that the 20,000+ jobs that will be lost has nothing to do with them....
I doubt anyone clueful will look back at this Government other than the worst Government of their lifetime...
Hang on - you can easily 'blame' Blair's government for that, and the disastrous decision to award Hitachi a train-building contract in 2009.
I really hope Derby survives. 175 years of history should matter when their rivals are fly-by-nights.
Given that Hitachi was founded in 1910, that's a tiny bit unfair. They built the first Japanese main line electric loco 100 years ago.
All they built at Newton Aycliffe was a final assembly plant for parts made in Japan. Their presence in the train building market was only ever going to be temporary. And given the (ahem) interesting way the contract was given, and the problems the trains have had, if they go - good riddance.
Not true. They added welding and painting in 2021. The plan was always to move away from being a screwdriver facility as the business developed. Similar to how Japanese car makers and automotive Tier 1s operated. I interviewed there just before COVID and they were very committed to developing a train building, rather than assembling, presence.
Rail is not just new build but overhaul as well. When I worked at Litchurch Lane the site was predominantly overhaul. Including the bomb damaged central line carriages from the 7/7 atrocity.
Can’t be much overhaul work around although Wabtec and Unipart seemed to be the go to sites for overhaul.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
So, apparently, is good sentence formation and punctuation...
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Good evening
£1.20 for every English £1.00
Though allowing for the older, more deprived and sick population that may not be enough.
Could Raynergate cause problems for Labour in the council elections .
Not sure when the police are due to finish their review . Or will they hold off from going public until after the elections .
It seems unlikely. If it were Starmer maybe, but I’d be interested in the usual test of how many of the public know who she is, or could put a name to a photo.
It will depend whether tomorrows Mail on Sunday story is picked up by the main stream media as a genuine issue, and Labour spokespersons are interrogated ad infinitum by the likes of Burley, Rigby, Kunnessberg and others
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
I'll record it to my Sky Q box and can watch it when I want to.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Good evening
£1.20 for every English £1.00
Though allowing for the older, more deprived and sick population that may not be enough.
Can that be quantified? Is Wales older, sicker and more deprived? By 20%?
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Good evening
£1.20 for every English £1.00
It isn't that straightforward. You need to take into consideration the differing demands of the populations in the two nations.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Labour could be utterly useless and still be better than the current lot.
There's always room to get *much* worse; look at (say) Russia politically, Venezuela politically and fiscally, or South Africa for everything. It's feasible that we'll look back at Sunak's government with a certain fondness.
This is a Government that has created a 2-3 year gap in train orders resulting in the Derby (and probably the Newton Aycliffe) manufacturers running out of work. It's then trying to pretend that the 20,000+ jobs that will be lost has nothing to do with them....
I doubt anyone clueful will look back at this Government other than the worst Government of their lifetime...
Hang on - you can easily 'blame' Blair's government for that, and the disastrous decision to award Hitachi a train-building contract in 2009.
I really hope Derby survives. 175 years of history should matter when their rivals are fly-by-nights.
Given that Hitachi was founded in 1910, that's a tiny bit unfair. They built the first Japanese main line electric loco 100 years ago.
All they built at Newton Aycliffe was a final assembly plant for parts made in Japan. Their presence in the train building market was only ever going to be temporary. And given the (ahem) interesting way the contract was given, and the problems the trains have had, if they go - good riddance.
Not true. They added welding and painting in 2021. The plan was always to move away from being a screwdriver facility as the business developed. Similar to how Japanese car makers and automotive Tier 1s operated. I interviewed there just before COVID and they were very committed to developing a train building, rather than assembling, presence.
Rail is not just new build but overhaul as well. When I worked at Litchurch Lane the site was predominantly overhaul. Including the bomb damaged central line carriages from the 7/7 atrocity.
Can’t be much overhaul work around although Wabtec and Unipart seemed to be the go to sites for overhaul.
'Very committed to', with their current train orders coming to an end in a few years?
It is actually fairly different to Litchurch Lane - however Bombardier / Alstom tried to change that...
And the Hitachi trains are poor.
Edit: and the new welding facility might just be to do with all the fatigue cracks their products have been suffering from...
In I didn't realise that there was a war going on news...
BBC:
The military regime which seized power in Myanmar three years ago has suffered another big defeat, this time on the eastern border with Thailand.
Troops had suffered weeks of attacks by ethnic Karen insurgents, allied with other anti-coup forces.
Hundreds of troops guarding the vital border town of Myawaddy have now agreed to surrender.
The Burmese internal war with the Karen and Shan states has been going on for over 50 years.
It's been quite brutal lately - see also Sudan. But then the UK media is 98% Gaza, 1% Ukraine, 0.5% $random_euro_news, 0.5% the rest of the world. Though give it another month or two and we can swap Gaza for Trump/Biden I suppose.
The first I knew about the internal Burmese war, in the mid-60s, was from a fellow u/g student who happened to be a son of the Shan king. I hope the military junta moderates its treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi with the realisation that the increased intensity of fighting could bring about their demise.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Good evening
£1.20 for every English £1.00
Though allowing for the older, more deprived and sick population that may not be enough.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Best Steven Seagal film ever made!
That implies he made at least one other that was vaguely watchable.
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
What makes you think that The Man Himself leafleted your humble abode? Because at least one of the leaflets had "sorry I missed you" written on it with his signature?
Which does NOT (necessarily) mean that HE was the one who delivered it . . . or even wrote the postscript.
At least based on my own humble experience as a canvasser.
To give him his due, Andrew R is pretty good at the street-pounding, door-knocking stuff. You do genuinely see him out and about a lot.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Yes. I am terrified at the prospect of an NHS we can rely on.
Like the Welsh NHS, currently under the hands of Labour?
Funded by the Tories in Westminster.
Doesn’t Wales get more money per person that’s England, due to the Barnett formula?
I don’t want to defend the Tory record on the NHS, other than to say that worldwide health systems are struggling after covid, and with ageing populations. But there is a clear example of a Labour run NHS that is not better than the English one (and some Welsh PBers claim it’s worse). Funding isn’t everything - policy and how you spend the money count too.
Good evening
£1.20 for every English £1.00
It isn't that straightforward. You need to take into consideration the differing demands of the populations in the two nations.
As Foxy pointed out. But is it a quantified 20% extra?
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
Even by Rozzer's standards, it was rather... shrill, wasn't it?
Definitely a change of tone, usually it's good old Andrew sticking up for Romford, helping somebody with something, Union Jack, isn't Brexit wonderful and let's declare UDI from London but this one does seem more desperate than usual.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The main thing that people have forgotten is just how populist New Labour were. They were forever chasing tabloid headlines.
Not at all. They behaved very much like a Conservative government. Just a somewhat more competent one.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Is that the Rishi Sunak documentary
"Under Desk: The Liz Truss Story" is far superior.
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
Even by Rozzer's standards, it was rather... shrill, wasn't it?
Definitely a change of tone, usually it's good old Andrew sticking up for Romford, helping somebody with something, Union Jack, isn't Brexit wonderful and let's declare UDI from London but this one does seem more desperate than usual.
He should be turfed out, come what may?
Unlikely, unless it's wipeout. Labour narrowly won Romford in 1997 to everyone's surprise including the Labour candidate. But boundary changes since then have added several safe Tory wards from Hornchurch. So unlikely. But he does deserve to be booted out, for various reasons, including some I can't repeat on here.
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Labour could be utterly useless and still be better than the current lot.
There's always room to get *much* worse; look at (say) Russia politically, Venezuela politically and fiscally, or South Africa for everything. It's feasible that we'll look back at Sunak's government with a certain fondness.
This is a Government that has created a 2-3 year gap in train orders resulting in the Derby (and probably the Newton Aycliffe) manufacturers running out of work. It's then trying to pretend that the 20,000+ jobs that will be lost has nothing to do with them....
I doubt anyone clueful will look back at this Government other than the worst Government of their lifetime...
Hang on - you can easily 'blame' Blair's government for that, and the disastrous decision to award Hitachi a train-building contract in 2009.
I really hope Derby survives. 175 years of history should matter when their rivals are fly-by-nights.
Given that Hitachi was founded in 1910, that's a tiny bit unfair. They built the first Japanese main line electric loco 100 years ago.
All they built at Newton Aycliffe was a final assembly plant for parts made in Japan. Their presence in the train building market was only ever going to be temporary. And given the (ahem) interesting way the contract was given, and the problems the trains have had, if they go - good riddance.
Not true. They added welding and painting in 2021. The plan was always to move away from being a screwdriver facility as the business developed. Similar to how Japanese car makers and automotive Tier 1s operated. I interviewed there just before COVID and they were very committed to developing a train building, rather than assembling, presence.
Rail is not just new build but overhaul as well. When I worked at Litchurch Lane the site was predominantly overhaul. Including the bomb damaged central line carriages from the 7/7 atrocity.
Can’t be much overhaul work around although Wabtec and Unipart seemed to be the go to sites for overhaul.
'Very committed to', with their current train orders coming to an end in a few years?
.
Committed enough to put in a new paint and welding plant in 2021 whereas you thought all they had was a screwdriver facility.
Oh, and it was not not assembling kits from Japan. Parts were also being sourced locally.
Angela Rayner being caught out by previous over sharing on social media backs up my idea that technology is becoming the all-seeing all-knowing Old Testament God that neither forgives or forgets
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
Even by Rozzer's standards, it was rather... shrill, wasn't it?
Definitely a change of tone, usually it's good old Andrew sticking up for Romford, helping somebody with something, Union Jack, isn't Brexit wonderful and let's declare UDI from London but this one does seem more desperate than usual.
He should be turfed out, come what may?
Unlikely, unless it's wipeout. Labour narrowly won Romford in 1997 to everyone's surprise including the Labour candidate. But boundary changes since then have added several safe Tory wards from Hornchurch. So unlikely. But he does deserve to be booted out, for various reasons, including some I can't repeat on here.
Yes, I’m aware of some of those reasons. What’s the good of a landslide if it doesn’t take out dross like him.
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
Even by Rozzer's standards, it was rather... shrill, wasn't it?
Definitely a change of tone, usually it's good old Andrew sticking up for Romford, helping somebody with something, Union Jack, isn't Brexit wonderful and let's declare UDI from London but this one does seem more desperate than usual.
He should be turfed out, come what may?
Depends a lot on how the Reform campaign plays out. He got a 38% majority last time. Con/Lab swing won't eat up all of that by itself. If Reform stand and take a significant bite out of his vote, he may be in trouble. (Some of the MRPs have him losing, but only just.)
It's a tricky judgement call for the light blue peril. On one hand, Romford is the sort of place they might get a decent vote. On the other, they risk kicking a Reform-friendly MP out of Parliament.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
The 'soft Brexit' being touted was closer to Remain than to Leave.
The soft Brexit involved leaving the EU. It was Leave. It was also close to Remain, but when you’ve got the populace evenly split, a centrist position is going to look like that.
Oh please. If a million votes had gone the other way, would that have been interpreted as a vote for in the EU but to never have any integration again so as to keep Leave voters on board? Of course not, it would have been full speed ahead.
And your interpretation of "as long as it is *technically* Brexit, the actual substance doesn't matter" is the pure duplicitousness of EU types. It is exactly what happened to the Irish over the EU constitution. That sort of insidiousness is why more people voted Leave.
Good job too, given we have economically outgrown the EU since we left EU structures.
I sort of disagree. Farage said a close result for remain would be unfinished business. We would not have left but I think our relationship would still have changed, had we remained in.
I sort of wonder if the election after a remain win would have seen UKIP do really well as the SNP did after voting for “stay”.
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
She could have handled this better. It would have been easy to close down. Apologise. Say it may be an error. Release the advice and move on.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
The 'soft Brexit' being touted was closer to Remain than to Leave.
The soft Brexit involved leaving the EU. It was Leave. It was also close to Remain, but when you’ve got the populace evenly split, a centrist position is going to look like that.
Oh please. If a million votes had gone the other way, would that have been interpreted as a vote for in the EU but to never have any integration again so as to keep Leave voters on board? Of course not, it would have been full speed ahead.
And your interpretation of "as long as it is *technically* Brexit, the actual substance doesn't matter" is the pure duplicitousness of EU types. It is exactly what happened to the Irish over the EU constitution. That sort of insidiousness is why more people voted Leave.
Good job too, given we have economically outgrown the EU since we left EU structures.
I sort of disagree. Farage said a close result for remain would be unfinished business. We would not have left but I think our relationship would still have changed, had we remained in.
I sort of wonder if the election after a remain win would have seen UKIP do really well as the SNP did after voting for “stay”.
I think the comparison that works best is Scotland post 2014. A narrow loss and an ongoing, but weakened campaign. Add in an intransigent government - wait for another generation etc and leavers would be left to suck it up. Whether the SNP do whither away ( as seems to be starting) and whether UKIP would have done in this scenario I can’t say.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
She could have handled this better. It would have been easy to close down. Apologise. Say it may be an error. Release the advice and move on.
That may have worked in the past but it doesn't work now. Never apologise, never explain. People will attack whatever you do, whoever you are.
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
She could have handled this better. It would have been easy to close down. Apologise. Say it may be an error. Release the advice and move on.
I have no way of knowing the truth, but it smells fishy, so my suspicion is that she has bent things a little, been caught out being a bit Tory, dug her heels in and now may well suffer consequences. Hopefully not the end of her career. I don’t particularly like her, but I do admire her life’s journey. Having a poor start in life does not need to be a lasting impediment.
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
She could have handled this better. It would have been easy to close down. Apologise. Say it may be an error. Release the advice and move on.
That may have worked in the past but it doesn't work now. Never apologise, never explain. People will attack whatever you do, whoever you are.
I think the story has really dried up. It feels exactly like beergate to me.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
So, apparently, is good sentence formation and punctuation...
Did you fail to understand what I meant? I doubt it so what difference....we didn't all get your educational opportunities and some of us ended up in sink schools
It is really pathetic. He was probably wearing Adidas Sambas, Gazelles and Puma States at school when they were cool that time round. Are they suggesting that there should be some sort of committee who decide whether you are allowed to wear certain clothing based on your politics or background?
I would imagine Adrian Chiles wearing a pair would be more damaging to their cred than Sunak wearing them but can’t write about that as the Guardian Editor might be peeved for some reason.
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
She could have handled this better. It would have been easy to close down. Apologise. Say it may be an error. Release the advice and move on.
That may have worked in the past but it doesn't work now. Never apologise, never explain. People will attack whatever you do, whoever you are.
The problem is this story is just dragging on and on and it is relatively trivial in the overall,scheme of things.
She just comes over as evasive and deflecting on it and it just means it drags on.
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
What makes you think that The Man Himself leafleted your humble abode? Because at least one of the leaflets had "sorry I missed you" written on it with his signature?
Which does NOT (necessarily) mean that HE was the one who delivered it . . . or even wrote the postscript.
At least based on my own humble experience as a canvasser.
I've seen him out on my patch recently. In fact there aren't many activists apart from councillors so my guess is he was with the local councillor and one or two others working as a team. To be fair to him he does spend a lot of his time on the doorstep, but he has no other interests in life as far as I can make out.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
What makes you think that The Man Himself leafleted your humble abode? Because at least one of the leaflets had "sorry I missed you" written on it with his signature?
Which does NOT (necessarily) mean that HE was the one who delivered it . . . or even wrote the postscript.
At least based on my own humble experience as a canvasser.
I've seen him out on my patch recently. In fact there aren't many activists apart from councillors so my guess is he was with the local councillor and one or two others working as a team. To be fair to him he does spend a lot of his time on the doorstep, but he has no other interests in life as far as I can make out.
Tory candidates are going to have their work cut out explaining to us that the big reason for voting Tory is to sort out the shambles that has been made by whoever has been running the country for the last 14 years.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
The 'soft Brexit' being touted was closer to Remain than to Leave.
The soft Brexit involved leaving the EU. It was Leave. It was also close to Remain, but when you’ve got the populace evenly split, a centrist position is going to look like that.
Oh please. If a million votes had gone the other way, would that have been interpreted as a vote for in the EU but to never have any integration again so as to keep Leave voters on board? Of course not, it would have been full speed ahead.
And your interpretation of "as long as it is *technically* Brexit, the actual substance doesn't matter" is the pure duplicitousness of EU types. It is exactly what happened to the Irish over the EU constitution. That sort of insidiousness is why more people voted Leave.
Good job too, given we have economically outgrown the EU since we left EU structures.
I don't know what would have happened if the vote had been for Remain. If you think David Cameron and the Conservatives would have f***ed it up... sure, that's quite plausible.
The referendum vote was on leaving the EU. Every soft Brexit option, as very hard Brexit option, involved categorically leaving the EU. Every option saw us out of the European Parliament, out of the Council of the EU, out of the European Commission. There are no doubts today as to what countries are in the EU and which are not, and that would have been equally true if we'd gone with a different form of Brexit. Brexit is Brexit.
The precise nature of our Brexit matters hugely, but the vote wasn't on that. You shouldn't re-write history by claiming that the referendum was a vote for the particular form of Brexit you wanted. Brexiteers in the referendum campaign promised a much softer Brexit that finally occurred.
As for our economy, I believe we are currently in a recession.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
So, apparently, is good sentence formation and punctuation...
Did you fail to understand what I meant? I doubt it so what difference....we didn't all get your educational opportunities and some of us ended up in sink schools
You evidently missed the smile at the end of the sentence.
As for your last sentence: many people who go to 'sink schools' raise themselves up. It does not have to be a life sentence of mediocrity. Personally, I think I was lucky in some parts of my younger life - and rather unlucky in others.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
Yes. He needed either to stay and make it work according to the government's detailed plan, or to tell us, before the vote, that leaving is such an absurd disaster that he isn't prepared to run the country if we vote leave and there isn't a plan because it can't work.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Yes, that's fair.
I don't think it is. *If* the government had tried to tie down what the 'leave' option meant, then the Europhobes would have screamed murder - as it would not have met what *they* wanted, what *they* wanted to campaign for. That would have been true, because the leave campaign was rather contradictory to create a broad church. The government were clear what a vote to remain meant, and had done the hard legwork for that. They were not recommending people vote leave.
It was up to leave to tell people what they were voting for, and the contradictions in their lies has led us to this mess.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
So, apparently, is good sentence formation and punctuation...
Did you fail to understand what I meant? I doubt it so what difference....we didn't all get your educational opportunities and some of us ended up in sink schools
You evidently missed the smile at the end of the sentence.
As for your last sentence: many people who go to 'sink schools' raise themselves up. It does not have to be a life sentence of mediocrity. Personally, I think I was lucky in some parts of my younger life - and rather unlucky in others.
Yes I missed the smile but in my defence I have often been told off for punctuation and grammar here so yes its an item of irritation. Not because I don't always know the rules but because I am thinking yes I got it wrong grammatically or punctuation but because it often feels like what I am saying is plain to understand and its just people being pedantic.
I am one of those that has pulled myself up, left school and worked first on trawlers now I am a software engineer through home schooling
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Labour could be utterly useless and still be better than the current lot.
There's always room to get *much* worse; look at (say) Russia politically, Venezuela politically and fiscally, or South Africa for everything. It's feasible that we'll look back at Sunak's government with a certain fondness.
This is a Government that has created a 2-3 year gap in train orders resulting in the Derby (and probably the Newton Aycliffe) manufacturers running out of work. It's then trying to pretend that the 20,000+ jobs that will be lost has nothing to do with them....
I doubt anyone clueful will look back at this Government other than the worst Government of their lifetime...
Hang on - you can easily 'blame' Blair's government for that, and the disastrous decision to award Hitachi a train-building contract in 2009.
I really hope Derby survives. 175 years of history should matter when their rivals are fly-by-nights.
Given that Hitachi was founded in 1910, that's a tiny bit unfair. They built the first Japanese main line electric loco 100 years ago.
All they built at Newton Aycliffe was a final assembly plant for parts made in Japan. Their presence in the train building market was only ever going to be temporary. And given the (ahem) interesting way the contract was given, and the problems the trains have had, if they go - good riddance.
Not true. They added welding and painting in 2021. The plan was always to move away from being a screwdriver facility as the business developed. Similar to how Japanese car makers and automotive Tier 1s operated. I interviewed there just before COVID and they were very committed to developing a train building, rather than assembling, presence.
Rail is not just new build but overhaul as well. When I worked at Litchurch Lane the site was predominantly overhaul. Including the bomb damaged central line carriages from the 7/7 atrocity.
Can’t be much overhaul work around although Wabtec and Unipart seemed to be the go to sites for overhaul.
'Very committed to', with their current train orders coming to an end in a few years?
.
Committed enough to put in a new paint and welding plant in 2021 whereas you thought all they had was a screwdriver facility.
Oh, and it was not not assembling kits from Japan. Parts were also being sourced locally.
Some parts.
And as I said; the welding plant was rather needed given their trains were going out of service due to cracks... in the welds. Scuttlebutt is that they knew that the problem was coming.
"Hitachi Rail should carry out a formal review of the effectiveness of their processes for welding when the component geometry is more challenging, which should include consideration of whether the existing approach adequately mitigates the risks of a weld with insufficient fusion being accepted. "
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Yes, that's fair.
I don't think it is. *If* the government had tried to tie down what the 'leave' option meant, then the Europhobes would have screamed murder - as it would not have met what *they* wanted, what *they* wanted to campaign for. That would have been true, because the leave campaign was rather contradictory to create a broad church. The government were clear what a vote to remain meant, and had done the hard legwork for that. They were not recommending people vote leave.
It was up to leave to tell people what they were voting for, and the contradictions in their lies has led us to this mess.
Plus a terrible campaign from remain. It was so relentlessly negative - don’t leave, if we do the economy will suffer, instant job losses, cuts to government spending etc. Some proved true, some less so. It’s like telling kids not to smoke or take drugs because bad things might happen. Doesn’t work. Remain needed to be positive about membership, extol the virtues. But the6 didn’t.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
It's not a spectrum; the cliff-edge of EEA (SM/FoM) is so large that its essentially either-or and everything else is a second-order concern.
And, as remainers never cease to remind us, it was all about immigration - so FoM had to go. And all else follows.
Edit: the idea there was an easily navigable, smooth, contiguous spectrum is akin to the cakeism leavers were accused of.
May's Brexit was softer than Johnson's, while both are outside the EEA. (Sunak's is perhaps in between.) None of it was easy(!), but there were many options. Conservative Party internal dynamics dragged us away from the centre, and away from the sort of post-Brexit arrangements that Leavers had described in the referendum. And Johnson definitely lied about his deal.
There is something of a cliff-edge with EEA membership, but even then Switzerland has ended up with something partway down the cliff. I don't know that Switzerland's exact arrangements would have been available, but it shows what might have been possible.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
It's not a spectrum; the cliff-edge of EEA (SM/FoM) is so large that its essentially either-or and everything else is a second-order concern.
And, as remainers never cease to remind us, it was all about immigration - so FoM had to go. And all else follows.
Edit: the idea there was an easily navigable, smooth, contiguous spectrum is akin to the cakeism leavers were accused of.
May's Brexit was softer than Johnson's, while both are outside the EEA. (Sunak's is perhaps in between.) None of it was easy(!), but there were many options. Conservative Party internal dynamics dragged us away from the centre, and away from the sort of post-Brexit arrangements that Leavers had described in the referendum. And Johnson definitely lied about his deal.
There is something of a cliff-edge with EEA membership, but even then Switzerland has ended up with something partway down the cliff. I don't know that Switzerland's exact arrangements would have been available, but it shows what might have been possible.
Perhaps then pro eu mp's should have thought twice before voting down may's deal instead of hoping to push through a redo referendum. Just a thought
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
What makes you think that The Man Himself leafleted your humble abode? Because at least one of the leaflets had "sorry I missed you" written on it with his signature?
Which does NOT (necessarily) mean that HE was the one who delivered it . . . or even wrote the postscript.
At least based on my own humble experience as a canvasser.
I've seen him out on my patch recently. In fact there aren't many activists apart from councillors so my guess is he was with the local councillor and one or two others working as a team. To be fair to him he does spend a lot of his time on the doorstep, but he has no other interests in life as far as I can make out.
Yield to your observations & experience. Just in my own, "sorry I missed you" does NOT always mean the candidate themselves actually visited in person.
And have also observed/experienced a few campaigners on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) similarly dedicated/obsessed with canvassing. Who too often proved, between campaigns, that doorbelling (as we USers mostly call it) was pretty much their sole contribution in/to politics/govt.
One in particular, was longtime state legislator from a Seattle district, who was famous for doorbelling IN BETWEEN elections, for purpose of securing permission to put his yardsigns up in front of actual voter residences. As opposed to simply littering the right-of-way along highways & arterials and at prominent corners & junctions.
Now signs along the highway show that the candidate is working, and can help to increase "visibility" and name ID among voters PROVIDE enough of them are budgeted, erected AND maintained.
However, they are no substitute for yardsigns actually located in somebody's actual yard.
Another example, was state rep from south King County, in that magically dimension betwixt & between Seattle & Tacoma. Which includes SeaTac Airport, naturally, and also city of Sea-Tac (note the difference!) plus "Seacoma" (wtf where they thinking, or rather on? and "Midway" which unlike SEA (the airport) are NOT on standard tourist itineraries.
Anyway, down in his South King Co district, this fellow, who was a policeman, was an relentless and very effective campaigner. One of the few Democrats to win election on his turf (which he did multiple times every two years for a decade) with his racers edge being his contacts and feedback from local voters.
Anyway, I have been out all day and returned to find my local Conservative MP (Andrew Rosindell) has been visiting while I'm out. He left 3 leaflets for the GLA elections and the main one (which is really about him) is quite dispiriting as it is full of rubbish and not a good sign of how the Tories intend to fight the next election.
Anyway - 2 LOL moments in it.
Apparently I have to vote for him or "hand Romford and Britain over to a left-wing, woke-obsessed, re-join EU, socialist party". That sounds good to me. Which party is that then? I thought it was Labour in 2nd place here
And separately he complains about the state of the roads, litter, concrete jungle of high-rise buildings and the decline of the town centre. Vote against the party that has allowed that to happen by being in government for 14 years and controlling the council for 20 years until they were booted out (leaving no money for the new administration to improve anything). Oh.
Clearly, he means the Rejoin EU party, who are standing for the London Assembly... although they're not very socialist. Their best known candidate is a former Conservative Party MEP.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Labour could be utterly useless and still be better than the current lot.
There's always room to get *much* worse; look at (say) Russia politically, Venezuela politically and fiscally, or South Africa for everything. It's feasible that we'll look back at Sunak's government with a certain fondness.
This is a Government that has created a 2-3 year gap in train orders resulting in the Derby (and probably the Newton Aycliffe) manufacturers running out of work. It's then trying to pretend that the 20,000+ jobs that will be lost has nothing to do with them....
I doubt anyone clueful will look back at this Government other than the worst Government of their lifetime...
Hang on - you can easily 'blame' Blair's government for that, and the disastrous decision to award Hitachi a train-building contract in 2009.
I really hope Derby survives. 175 years of history should matter when their rivals are fly-by-nights.
Given that Hitachi was founded in 1910, that's a tiny bit unfair. They built the first Japanese main line electric loco 100 years ago.
All they built at Newton Aycliffe was a final assembly plant for parts made in Japan. Their presence in the train building market was only ever going to be temporary. And given the (ahem) interesting way the contract was given, and the problems the trains have had, if they go - good riddance.
Not true. They added welding and painting in 2021. The plan was always to move away from being a screwdriver facility as the business developed. Similar to how Japanese car makers and automotive Tier 1s operated. I interviewed there just before COVID and they were very committed to developing a train building, rather than assembling, presence.
Rail is not just new build but overhaul as well. When I worked at Litchurch Lane the site was predominantly overhaul. Including the bomb damaged central line carriages from the 7/7 atrocity.
Can’t be much overhaul work around although Wabtec and Unipart seemed to be the go to sites for overhaul.
'Very committed to', with their current train orders coming to an end in a few years?
.
Committed enough to put in a new paint and welding plant in 2021 whereas you thought all they had was a screwdriver facility.
Oh, and it was not not assembling kits from Japan. Parts were also being sourced locally.
Some parts.
Which is why I said ‘also’ not ‘only’
I hope Litchurch Lane survives but if someone like Shortterm in Derby ends up having to close on the back of it then all well and good.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
Just to cheer you up.
Under Siege is on Channel 4 tonight at 11.10pm
Why not stream it and watch when you want rather than having to be a slave to a moribund slave system of you can watch when we allow you to....why broadcast tv is dying
I'll record it to my Sky Q box and can watch it when I want to.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
The 'soft Brexit' being touted was closer to Remain than to Leave.
The soft Brexit involved leaving the EU. It was Leave. It was also close to Remain, but when you’ve got the populace evenly split, a centrist position is going to look like that.
Oh please. If a million votes had gone the other way, would that have been interpreted as a vote for in the EU but to never have any integration again so as to keep Leave voters on board? Of course not, it would have been full speed ahead.
And your interpretation of "as long as it is *technically* Brexit, the actual substance doesn't matter" is the pure duplicitousness of EU types. It is exactly what happened to the Irish over the EU constitution. That sort of insidiousness is why more people voted Leave.
Good job too, given we have economically outgrown the EU since we left EU structures.
I sort of disagree. Farage said a close result for remain would be unfinished business. We would not have left but I think our relationship would still have changed, had we remained in.
I sort of wonder if the election after a remain win would have seen UKIP do really well as the SNP did after voting for “stay”.
Indeed, the idea it would have been full speed ahead flies in the face of facts. Though that's entirely unsurprising from someone still a Brexit fan despite the mountains of evidence it's been bad for Britain.
For a start the 'deal' presented as the reason to vote in was limiting. A narrow 'remain' would have scared off British politicians off any serious further integration for a generation - and doubly so Conservative ones.
The duplicitousness comes from the hard Brexiteers I'm afraid. It's pure projection.
They behaved incredibly deceitfully themselves in endlessly moving goalposts about what they wanted and what it would mean, not having any plan beyond delusional fantasies, and inflicting far more harm on the country than necessary (even in voting leave), so see those who objected to that as doing the same.
Now we're in even more of a mess they keep on blaming others or putting out the latest tractor figures. 21st Century communists.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
Polls for things the poster likes are definitive.....polls for things they don't like can be ignored due to the voters being ignorant knuckle draggers
Comments
Which does NOT (necessarily) mean that HE was the one who delivered it . . . or even wrote the postscript.
At least based on my own humble experience as a canvasser.
£1.20 for every English £1.00
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
Just got back from work and within 5 mins my cats are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
https://x.com/angelarayner/status/446752993053278210?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/new-facilities-completed-at-newton-aycliffe-plant/
So makes them no different to Litchurch Lane.
Rail is not just new build but overhaul as well. When I worked at Litchurch Lane the site was predominantly overhaul. Including the bomb damaged central line carriages from the 7/7 atrocity.
Can’t be much overhaul work around although Wabtec and Unipart seemed to be the go to sites for overhaul.
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
It is actually fairly different to Litchurch Lane - however Bombardier / Alstom tried to change that...
And the Hitachi trains are poor.
Edit: and the new welding facility might just be to do with all the fatigue cracks their products have been suffering from...
Adidas Sambas were this year’s coolest shoes – until Rishi Sunak got a pair | Michael Hogan
https://x.com/guardian/status/1776671571068715097?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
Oh, and it was not not assembling kits from Japan. Parts were also being sourced locally.
It's a tricky judgement call for the light blue peril. On one hand, Romford is the sort of place they might get a decent vote. On the other, they risk kicking a Reform-friendly MP out of Parliament.
I sort of wonder if the election after a remain win would have seen UKIP do really well as the SNP did after voting for “stay”.
Friday Night Dinner was good but went downhill towards the end.
Whether the SNP do whither away ( as seems to be starting) and whether UKIP would have done in this scenario I can’t say.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
I would imagine Adrian Chiles wearing a pair would be more damaging to their cred than Sunak wearing them but can’t write about that as the Guardian Editor might be peeved for some reason.
Opinium’s latest research for Observer finds voters deserting the Conservatives for Reform and Labour in equal numbers
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/only-four-in-10-tory-voters-from-2019-back-sunak-poll
She just comes over as evasive and deflecting on it and it just means it drags on.
They had a one armed washer up for goodness sake.
Crockery got broken and Robin got annoyed.
The referendum vote was on leaving the EU. Every soft Brexit option, as very hard Brexit option, involved categorically leaving the EU. Every option saw us out of the European Parliament, out of the Council of the EU, out of the European Commission. There are no doubts today as to what countries are in the EU and which are not, and that would have been equally true if we'd gone with a different form of Brexit. Brexit is Brexit.
The precise nature of our Brexit matters hugely, but the vote wasn't on that. You shouldn't re-write history by claiming that the referendum was a vote for the particular form of Brexit you wanted. Brexiteers in the referendum campaign promised a much softer Brexit that finally occurred.
As for our economy, I believe we are currently in a recession.
As for your last sentence: many people who go to 'sink schools' raise themselves up. It does not have to be a life sentence of mediocrity. Personally, I think I was lucky in some parts of my younger life - and rather unlucky in others.
It was up to leave to tell people what they were voting for, and the contradictions in their lies has led us to this mess.
I am one of those that has pulled myself up, left school and worked first on trawlers now I am a software engineer through home schooling
And as I said; the welding plant was rather needed given their trains were going out of service due to cracks... in the welds. Scuttlebutt is that they knew that the problem was coming.
"Hitachi Rail should carry out a formal review of the effectiveness of their processes for welding when the component geometry is more challenging, which should include consideration of whether the existing approach adequately mitigates the risks of a weld with insufficient fusion being accepted. "
https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/rail-regulator-publishes-class-800-series-safety-report
Hitachi trains have been a disaster for Britain's railways, operationally and financially.
It’s like telling kids not to smoke or take drugs because bad things might happen. Doesn’t work.
Remain needed to be positive about membership, extol the virtues. But the6 didn’t.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
There is something of a cliff-edge with EEA membership, but even then Switzerland has ended up with something partway down the cliff. I don't know that Switzerland's exact arrangements would have been available, but it shows what might have been possible.
Without that, 8 years later we might still be arguing about Brexit...
And have also observed/experienced a few campaigners on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) similarly dedicated/obsessed with canvassing. Who too often proved, between campaigns, that doorbelling (as we USers mostly call it) was pretty much their sole contribution in/to politics/govt.
One in particular, was longtime state legislator from a Seattle district, who was famous for doorbelling IN BETWEEN elections, for purpose of securing permission to put his yardsigns up in front of actual voter residences. As opposed to simply littering the right-of-way along highways & arterials and at prominent corners & junctions.
Now signs along the highway show that the candidate is working, and can help to increase "visibility" and name ID among voters PROVIDE enough of them are budgeted, erected AND maintained.
However, they are no substitute for yardsigns actually located in somebody's actual yard.
Another example, was state rep from south King County, in that magically dimension betwixt & between Seattle & Tacoma. Which includes SeaTac Airport, naturally, and also city of Sea-Tac (note the difference!) plus "Seacoma" (wtf where they thinking, or rather on? and "Midway" which unlike SEA (the airport) are NOT on standard tourist itineraries.
Anyway, down in his South King Co district, this fellow, who was a policeman, was an relentless and very effective campaigner. One of the few Democrats to win election on his turf (which he did multiple times every two years for a decade) with his racers edge being his contacts and feedback from local voters.
I hope Litchurch Lane survives but if someone like Shortterm in Derby ends up having to close on the back of it then all well and good.
For a start the 'deal' presented as the reason to vote in was limiting. A narrow 'remain' would have scared off British politicians off any serious further integration for a generation - and doubly so Conservative ones.
The duplicitousness comes from the hard Brexiteers I'm afraid. It's pure projection.
They behaved incredibly deceitfully themselves in endlessly moving goalposts about what they wanted and what it would mean, not having any plan beyond delusional fantasies, and inflicting far more harm on the country than necessary (even in voting leave), so see those who objected to that as doing the same.
Now we're in even more of a mess they keep on blaming others or putting out the latest tractor figures. 21st Century communists.