Ruth Davidson is quiet for now but don't expect that to last long. Many PBers seem to think that the Scottish Tories were elected on the same manifesto as used in England. I reread the Tory leaflet we were delivered. There is no mention of Brexit or May. It was all about the economy, stability and good governance.
I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
Well yes, but why have such a far reaching manifesto. 2022 was the correct election for the controversial stuff where the effect of weakening the government should be far less as there are no Brexit talks scheduled for then. The manifesto overreached badly, it should have been pretty much no change + Brexit (As the QS turned out). Why bother to put stuff like fox hunting in there ?!
A far-reaching manifesto seemed to work well for Labour though? I'm not sure that a Tory manifesto that announced nothing would have been any better for them.
As many have argued on here - outflanking Labour on NHS funding could have been very powerful electorally.
No they don't. Many serious Labour people feared that the opposition was unelectable. Now, by and large, they don't. I don't think that many people on any side still think so.
Whilst some of the less thoughtful Labour figures might have been converted to Corbynism simply because it looks as though, against all the odds and common sense, he might after all be electable, anyone thinking further ahead will still be asking themselves: what would actually happen if we did form a government led by a bearded and exceedingly naive lefty extremist who clearly couldn't run a whelk stall, an IRA-sympathising near-communist who proposes blowing somewhare between £100bn and £200bn of money the country doesn't have and who is committed to destroying capitalism, and Diane Abbott?
More specifically, from my personal conversations, I could name two former Labour ministers (one of them quite high-profile) who think that a Corbyn government would be an utter disaster. Obviously it would break a confidence for me to name them here, but neither is one of those who have gone public or would be regarded as a member of the awkward squad.
Nor are we seeing a rush by serious figures to re-engage.
I fully expect Labour to win 20 - 25 seats in Scotland alone next time > Admittedly most of them will be at the expense of the SNP - though a few of the recent Tory seats gained could fall to Labour if tactical voting unwinds as a result of Labour being seen to be clearly back in the game there. That alone would put Labour on 285 - 290 seats without any changes at all in England & Wales.Labour would effectively need a further 40 seats beyond their likely recovery in Scotland - that is very feasible!
Why would you expect such a strong Labour comeback in Scotland?
It's true on paper that there are quite a number of fairly marginal SNP seats that Labour will doubtless target. But they are having a totally different debate in those seats to the rest of the UK. Scotland already has an economic populist party in the form of the SNP, which has the benefit of having credible leaders (unlike Scottish Labour), and of being based in Scotland rather than Islington. The SNP can also reasonably argue to Labour-leaners next time that, even if you like Corbyn, it can do a DUP for you - give you the PM you want whilst extracting oodles of cash.
On top of that, Indy 2 is unlikely to cloud the next election in Scotland as it did the last - there appears to have been a fair amount of anti-SNP tactical voting, which may well be flipped to anti-Labour in the marginals if Indy 2 goes on the back burner and the SNP re-focus on their "pro-Scotland" (as opposed to "pro-independence") credentials.
I'm not saying Labour gains in Scotland next time are impossible or even unlikely - but "fully expect" is way over the top.
Saw the new carrier when coming over the Forth Road Bridge this morning. It is a serious looking piece of metal.
It's a bit of a toy compared to a Nimitz or a Ford (or even an America) but they'll do. Of course, the RN does not have the ships or people to constitute anything approaching a full CVGB so quite what we're going to do with them I don't know.
It is a toy because you can't go to a proper war in a carrier without the CVBG to defend and replenish it. The 2017 RN simply does not have the resources to do that for one carrier let alone two. What do you do when the air wing has run the magazines dry on day three of the war? They don't call us WAFUs for nothing.
I had been an RN officer for 11 years and had done multiple deployments on all of the British carriers when I started my USN exchange tour. When I started my cruise on a Nimitz class I had a rather queasy realisation along the lines of: Oh, so THIS is carrier aviation.
If the UK had actually wanted a real carrier strike capability rather than just a massive job creation scheme then they should have just bought 2 x America LHA off the shelf (half the price) and spent the rest of the money on the ships, helicopters and people to support them way that would have actually made them of some use.
He's playing sick politics with the deaths, and making it more likely that other will die. That's offensive.
And you're accusing him of "making it more likely that other will die", on the basis of sheer speculation about what's going on in his head. Marvellous.
Been out, but felt the need to respond to this. Deciding what went wrong - and apportioning blame to gain political capital - at this early stage can only do harm uncovering the truth of what went on. And we need the truth if we're going to learn the lessons and ensure similar things don't happen again.
McDonnell isn't interested in the truth. He's only interested in getting idiots to think the Tories are MURDERERS !!!!
I don't care for the use of the word "murder" by John McDonnell. The public aren't, however, going to accept that like Little Dorrit that the Grenfell disaster was Nobody's Fault.
I think the Government need to think carefully about who will resign. As per my comments below as long as materials supplied match the design information, then it would seem strange that architects and building surveyors across the country have specified cladding that doesn't meet the relevant regulations. More likely poorly drafted British standard, or poorly conceived testing parameters, or grey areas in the regulations. When the Ronan Point disaster happened it led to huge changes in the building regulations.
"More likely poorly drafted British standard, or poorly conceived testing parameters, or grey areas in the regulations."
There's another option (although unlikely): that suppliers are, by mistake or through malice, providing the wrong things.
It might well be a combination of the above, with different ones applying in different cases. Certainly it seems very surprising that no-one seemed to notice.
I don't care for the use of the word "murder" by John McDonnell. The public aren't, however, going to accept that like Little Dorrit that the Grenfell disaster was Nobody's Fault.
Whether the public accept it or not, there is a chance that it might be the case. It's seeming increasingly likely that one or more organisations and individuals share blame.
The inquiry should cover not just the Grenfell tragedy, but the other buildings that have had incorrect cladding fitted. What's more, it should probably look deeply into general high-rise and low-rise multiple occupancy safety.
Comments
Ruth Davidson is quiet for now but don't expect that to last long. Many PBers seem to think that the Scottish Tories were elected on the same manifesto as used in England. I reread the Tory leaflet we were delivered. There is no mention of Brexit or May. It was all about the economy, stability and good governance.
I'm not sure that a Tory manifesto that announced nothing would have been any better for them.
As many have argued on here - outflanking Labour on NHS funding could have been very powerful electorally.
cost of jeremy corbyn as PM = national bankruptcy
I thought the main message was opposition to a second indy ref.
NEW THREAD
More specifically, from my personal conversations, I could name two former Labour ministers (one of them quite high-profile) who think that a Corbyn government would be an utter disaster. Obviously it would break a confidence for me to name them here, but neither is one of those who have gone public or would be regarded as a member of the awkward squad.
Nor are we seeing a rush by serious figures to re-engage.
What is true - that they did this, or did Jezza mention it on stage?
is pretty much accurate.
It's true on paper that there are quite a number of fairly marginal SNP seats that Labour will doubtless target. But they are having a totally different debate in those seats to the rest of the UK. Scotland already has an economic populist party in the form of the SNP, which has the benefit of having credible leaders (unlike Scottish Labour), and of being based in Scotland rather than Islington. The SNP can also reasonably argue to Labour-leaners next time that, even if you like Corbyn, it can do a DUP for you - give you the PM you want whilst extracting oodles of cash.
On top of that, Indy 2 is unlikely to cloud the next election in Scotland as it did the last - there appears to have been a fair amount of anti-SNP tactical voting, which may well be flipped to anti-Labour in the marginals if Indy 2 goes on the back burner and the SNP re-focus on their "pro-Scotland" (as opposed to "pro-independence") credentials.
I'm not saying Labour gains in Scotland next time are impossible or even unlikely - but "fully expect" is way over the top.
I had been an RN officer for 11 years and had done multiple deployments on all of the British carriers when I started my USN exchange tour. When I started my cruise on a Nimitz class I had a rather queasy realisation along the lines of: Oh, so THIS is carrier aviation.
If the UK had actually wanted a real carrier strike capability rather than just a massive job creation scheme then they should have just bought 2 x America LHA off the shelf (half the price) and spent the rest of the money on the ships, helicopters and people to support them way that would have actually made them of some use.
McDonnell isn't interested in the truth. He's only interested in getting idiots to think the Tories are MURDERERS !!!!
There's another option (although unlikely): that suppliers are, by mistake or through malice, providing the wrong things.
It might well be a combination of the above, with different ones applying in different cases. Certainly it seems very surprising that no-one seemed to notice.
The inquiry should cover not just the Grenfell tragedy, but the other buildings that have had incorrect cladding fitted. What's more, it should probably look deeply into general high-rise and low-rise multiple occupancy safety.