It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their particular party. It is human nature to do so. Events can stretch a person's loyalty until it snaps and it's interesting to see when that happens. Usually the explanation given is that 'I have not left the Party, it has left me'. Parties do change, sometimes quite quickly, and many members probably spend a lot of their time only partly satisfied with their chosen party. The same goes for general voters, would Proportional Representation help?
Yes, I think it could. A better solution might be a system of primaries where voters register their general allegiance as in the US. This would mean actual Lab/Con/LD/Green voters having the say over who was their candidate rather than swivel-eyed activists
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
I'm very hopeful that the increased tax take isn't just the impact of:
Dividend taxation applied for the first time to April Tax YE 2017, due by end of Jan 2018 Meaning that the first payment on account for directors who are largely remunerated that way is due July 2018.
But I think it is entirely possible that this is having a huge effect....
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their particular party. It is human nature to do so. Events can stretch a person's loyalty until it snaps and it's interesting to see when that happens. Usually the explanation given is that 'I have not left the Party, it has left me'. Parties do change, sometimes quite quickly, and many members probably spend a lot of their time only partly satisfied with their chosen party. The same goes for general voters, would Proportional Representation help?
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably not an anti-semite. Possibly. But it is unarguable that he has presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened. It is plausible deniability.
We all laughed at his supposed faux pas when asked about the cemetery, but it was more acute than we realised. Jeremy Corbyn's position on anti-semitism is the very definition of being involved but not present.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
The current model of capitalism hasn't worked well in the last decade for me personally - I was much better off under Labour. As I was once told, I'd rather work an hour for 5 inflated pounds than 50 deflated pence.
While I have sympathy, can I please point out there are others whose experience was the reverse? Thanks to Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy I lost my job in 2008 and they made it virtually impossible for me to get another, leading to three years of unemployment (and since I was refused benefits, those were three very, very difficult years). Only when the Coalition came in was I able to retrain and find employment. I appreciate some of the schemes I used have since been removed again, but Labour didn't even consider them.
It's more than "time for a change", more a recognition a long-serving Government remains anchored at one point culturally and in terms of the argument and the world has moved on around it. The language of austerity and 2010 sounds stale already and will be more so by 2022. No one, it seems, has a coherent and credible economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
This is true and is a well-known phenomenon that also hit Labour. The problem is that even so such a feeling only resonates if the alternative is seen as credible - just ask Neil Kinnock. Labour have no plans that would survive contact with reality and no philosophical basis to formulate any other than a sort of rehash of populist clichés and discredited Maoism/Trotskyism. I don't say they cannot win power, I do say that they are not giving anyone a compelling reason to vote for them.
Kinnock could well have defeated Thatcher in 1991/92 - and would certainly have won in 1997 albeit with a much more modest majority.
It is speculation, but I think it is unlikely. I saw Kinnock interviewed recently and he really isn't very impressive. I think his son comes across better. The hereditary principle is strong in the Labour party!
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I am reading Mark Lilla's new book on Identity politics and what it has done to the Democrats in US.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
Despite the mild words and the pleasant manner be in no doubt that Nick Palmer is fully on board with the Corbyn/Mc Donnell hard left agenda. He has said as much on here frequently. and yes that effectively includes looking the other way at the anti-semitism and the anti-western pro-terrorist agendas.
We have a Labour party which has a decidedly anti-semitic fringe (at best) and which also has a remarkable capacity to embrace parts of the Islamist agenda (talking to gender separated audiences is being anti-sexist is it? Attacking female MPs who speak up for girls raped and trafficked is being anti-sexist, is it? Wanting to limit free speech when it comes to talking about Islam is liberal, is it?)
The cultural left is good at talking about being against bad things. But in its actions it has rather more in common with the fascists it claims to be against. And in so doing it is helping to squeeze out real cultural liberalism.
Great post, thank you. Momentum has a very strong fascist smell to it. They make UKIP/BNP look like a bunch of amateurs. People like Nick Palmer, who, at least from previous posts I have read seems a decent person, should be standing up to these scumbags, not endorsing them or apologising for them.
The irony is that it is the cultural values embodied by Corbyn and his allies which put me off Labour far more than their economic incompetence.
I have been anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-racism since I was a teenager. The Tories were definitely not a cultural fit when I was young but have made moves in the right direction in recent years, though now I am less certain about them. But Labour seem to have moved away from liberalism not towards it. And it is not all down to Corbyn either. The attitude of veteran politicians like Roy Hattersley to the Rushdie fatwa started opening my eyes to the willngness of some on the left to abandon their principles when faced with threats of violence and the desire for votes, even when these came from some of the most sexist, homophobic and illiberal groups around.
I think that the Salman Rushdie affair can be seen as a watershed, with hindsight.
Yes. What was even more shocking was how so many people refused to see any problems with the fact that British citizens here were willing to follow the instructions of a foreign religious leader to call for crimes to be committed here against another British citizen. There was a direct line from burning books & threats of violence against an author to the murder of other authors three decades later.
But the real watershed, IMO, was the Ray Honeyford affair. All the stuff we read about now about girls being forced to marry, raped, deprived of their education & life choices, “honour” being seen as more important than individual liberty, misuse of the immigration system, a sense of separateness and unwillingness to integrate was there in what he told us. It has grown worse because we ignored it and shot the messenger instead. The cultural left was and remains complicit in this. To its shame.
The current model of capitalism hasn't worked well in the last decade for me personally - I was much better off under Labour. As I was once told, I'd rather work an hour for 5 inflated pounds than 50 deflated pence.
While I have sympathy, can I please point out there are others whose experience was the reverse? Thanks to Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy I lost my job in 2008 and they made it virtually impossible for me to get another, leading to three years of unemployment (and since I was refused benefits, those were three very, very difficult years). Only when the Coalition came in was I able to retrain and find employment. I appreciate some of the schemes I used have since been removed again, but Labour didn't even consider them.
It's more than "time for a change", more a recognition a long-serving Government remains anchored at one point culturally and in terms of the argument and the world has moved on around it. The language of austerity and 2010 sounds stale already and will be more so by 2022. No one, it seems, has a coherent and credible economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
This is true and is a well-known phenomenon that also hit Labour. The problem is that even so such a feeling only resonates if the alternative is seen as credible - just ask Neil Kinnock. Labour have no plans that would survive contact with reality and no philosophical basis to formulate any other than a sort of rehash of populist clichés and discredited Maoism/Trotskyism. I don't say they cannot win power, I do say that they are not giving anyone a compelling reason to vote for them.
Kinnock could well have defeated Thatcher in 1991/92 - and would certainly have won in 1997 albeit with a much more modest majority.
It is speculation, but I think it is unlikely. I saw Kinnock interviewed recently and he really isn't very impressive. I think his son comes across better. The hereditary principle is strong in the Labour party!
That is rather a separate issue . Even in 1992 Kinnock could have managed a 2017 type result - ie Tory minority Government - had he not lost control of himself at Sheffield a week before Polling Day. By 1997 the electorate was in a very different mood to 1992 and Major had ceased to be the breath of fresh air that he was perceived to be in the immediate post- Thatcher period. I have little doubt that Labour could have won in 1997 under the 1992 Manifesto - public opinion had moved towards it and was much more Anti-Tory in attitude. Michael Foot would have won that year!
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
Identity politics are tremendously popular at the moment. Brexit being the transcendent manifestation of IP.
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
There's a reason why the period 1945 - 1957 was called Austerity Britain. Governments sought to run balanced budgets at the same time as spending a huge proportion of national income on the armed forces. We didn't even scrap rationing until 1954. Public spending, as a share of national income, was well below its current level under the Conservative governments of the 1950's.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
Identity politics are tremendously popular at the moment. Brexit being the transcendent manifestation of IP.
Nevertheless it is not edifying to be heading in the direction of the US where politics is fought between two equally depressing cultural agendas.
Re the story about Corbyn’s secretary putting together a guide to how not to vote for Jews, three questions:
1. I thought it was a breach of Labour party rules to urge people not to vote for Labour candidates? If so, wouldn’t advising people not to vote for Jewish Labour candidates also be a breach?
2. Would a secretary really do this off her own bat without her boss knowing or approving it, expressly or impliedly?
3. Who is leaking this stuff to the papers and why now?
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
The deficit in 1957 was below 3% not above 10%
I am aware of that - indeed in some years it was a fair bit lower than that. The Budget Deficit has now been at manageable levels for several years - and Interest payments on the National Debt are well below the burden faced by Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor from 1931 - 1937.
Re the story about Corbyn’s secretary putting together a guide to how not to vote for Jews, three questions:
1. I thought it was a breach of Labour party rules to urge people not to vote for Labour candidates? If so, wouldn’t advising people not to vote for Jewish Labour candidates also be a breach?
2. Would a secretary really do this off her own bat without her boss knowing or approving it, expressly or impliedly?
3. Who is leaking this stuff to the papers and why now?
She is certainly in breach of the rules about encouraging people to vote for candidates other the Labour.
The cult will claim it is so far in the past as to no longer be relevant.
But it is clear evidence of antisemitism at the heart of Corbyn's office.
It is implausible to believe he was not aware of her attitudes and actions.
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
The deficit in 1957 was below 3% not above 10%
I am aware of that - indeed in some years it was a fair bit lower than that. The Budget Deficit has now been at manageable levels for several years - and Interest payments on the National Debt are well below the burden faced by Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor from 1931 - 1937.
It's only been at manageable levels because of austerity though. Without austerity it would have been at unmanageable levels still.
The burden we should be bequeathing the next generation shouldn't be the burden of World Wars. That's not the standard I hold ourselves to.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their particular party. It is human nature to do so. Events can stretch a person's loyalty until it snaps and it's interesting to see when that happens. Usually the explanation given is that 'I have not left the Party, it has left me'. Parties do change, sometimes quite quickly, and many members probably spend a lot of their time only partly satisfied with their chosen party. The same goes for general voters, would Proportional Representation help?
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
The current model of capitalism hasn't worked well in the last decade for me personally - I was much better off under Labour. As I was once told, I'd rather work an hour for 5 inflated pounds than 50 deflated pence.
While I have sympathy, can I please point out there are others whose experience was the reverse? Thanks to Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy I lost my job in 2008 and they made it virtually impossible for me to get another, leading to three years of unemployment (and since I was refused benefits, those were three very, very difficult years). Only when the Coalition came in was I able to retrain and find employment. I appreciate some of the schemes I used have since been removed again, but Labour didn't even consider them.
It's more than "time for a change", more a recognition a long-serving Government remains anchored at one point culturally and in terms of the argument and the world has moved on around it. The language of austerity and 2010 sounds stale already and will be more so by 2022. No one, it seems, has a coherent and credible economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
This is true and is a well-known phenomenon that also hit Labour. The problem is that even so such a feeling only resonates if the alternative is seen as credible - just ask Neil Kinnock. Labour have no plans that would survive contact with reality and no philosophical basis to formulate any other than a sort of rehash of populist clichés and discredited Maoism/Trotskyism. I don't say they cannot win power, I do say that they are not giving anyone a compelling reason to vote for them.
Kinnock could well have defeated Thatcher in 1991/92 - and would certainly have won in 1997 albeit with a much more modest majority.
It is speculation, but I think it is unlikely. I saw Kinnock interviewed recently and he really isn't very impressive. I think his son comes across better. The hereditary principle is strong in the Labour party!
SNIP
Certainly John Smith would have walked it in 1997 had he remained with us. His majority probably wouldn't have reached the scale of Blair's but that might have been for the best anyway!
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
Identity politics are tremendously popular at the moment. Brexit being the transcendent manifestation of IP.
Identity politics is just an ungainly and unlovely neologism. People voting in what they percieve to be _their_ best interests is as old as the hills.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
You are wilfully misinterpreting what identity politics means to suit your own agenda.
+1 is not a meme. It is the easiest way users of this particular forum software have of indicating their support or approval.
And if you dislike how people comport themselves on here, just leave. We don't benefit from your repeated ad hominem attacks or your repeated posts about mid-term polls.
"If the choice is an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe or a Labour party which is broadly in line with the instinctive culture of the times, many people will go with the latter even if they’re not really convinced of the economic case. "
The most sinister feature of Palmer's effort - the anti-muslim accusation against the Tories yet no mention whatsoever of the anti-semitism in his party. He will not even address it - just like his leader. Is anti-semitism part of the instinctive culture of the times he is so fond of?
What have we come to if he is right about the 'culture of the times'? Disgraceful.
But you are not being frank about what cultural leftism really means, I am afraid to say.
Take this - “. When I grew up, it was common for people to express mildly sexist, racist or homophobic views: it’s now seen as downright embarrassing.”
True. It was also common for people to express mildly anti-semitic views. But now, rather than being seen as downright embarrassing by some on the cultural left it is seen as practically de rigeur. It ought to be embarrassing but it isn’t.
And you contrast a pro-Brexit Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe with a mildly EU agnostic Labour party which is culturally in tune with the times. Come off it! We have a Labour party which has a decidedly anti-semitic fringe (at best) and which also has a remarkable capacity to embrace parts of the Islamist agenda (talking to gender separated audiences is being anti-sexist is it? Attacking female MPs who speak up for girls raped and trafficked is being anti-sexist, is it? Wanting to limit free speech when it comes to talking about Islam is liberal, is it?)
The cultural left is good at talking about being against bad things. But in its actions it has rather more in common with the fascists it claims to be against. And in so doing it is helping to squeeze out real cultural liberalism.
Great post, thank you. Momentum has a very strong fascist smell to it. They make UKIP/BNP look like a bunch of amateurs. People like Nick Palmer, who, at least from previous posts I have read seems a decent person, should be standing up to these scumbags, not endorsing them or apologising for them.
The irony is that it is the cultural values embodied by Corbyn and his allies which put me off Labour far more than their economic incompetence.
I have been anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-racism since I was a teenager. The Tories were definitely not a cultural fit when I was young but have made moves in the right direction in recent years, though now I am less certain about them. But Labour seem to have moved away from liberalism not towards it. And it is not all down to Corbyn either. The attitude of veteran politicians like Roy Hattersley to the Rushdie fatwa started opening my eyes to the willngness of some on the left to abandon their principles when faced with threats of violence and the desire for votes, even when these came from some of the most sexist, homophobic and illiberal groups around.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
You are wilfully misinterpreting what identity politics means to suit your own agenda.
+1 is not a meme. It is the easiest way users of this particular forum software have of indicating their support or approval.
And if you dislike how people comport themselves on here, just leave. We don't benefit from your repeated ad hominem attacks or your repeated posts about mid-term polls.
I don't like your posts either, but I am not calling for your departure. And no I am not misinterpreting what IP is – Brexit is the ultimate IP programme, it has all the hallmarks of it.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
You are wilfully misinterpreting what identity politics means to suit your own agenda.
+1 is not a meme. It is the easiest way users of this particular forum software have of indicating their support or approval.
And if you dislike how people comport themselves on here, just leave. We don't benefit from your repeated ad hominem attacks or your repeated posts about mid-term polls.
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their particular party. It is human nature to do so. Events can stretch a person's loyalty until it snaps and it's interesting to see when that happens. Usually the explanation given is that 'I have not left the Party, it has left me'. Parties do change, sometimes quite quickly, and many members probably spend a lot of their time only partly satisfied with their chosen party. The same goes for general voters, would Proportional Representation help?
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Yeh, and the English Patriotic National Party, or whatever, would be on 20%.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
You are wilfully misinterpreting what identity politics means to suit your own agenda.
+1 is not a meme. It is the easiest way users of this particular forum software have of indicating their support or approval.
And if you dislike how people comport themselves on here, just leave. We don't benefit from your repeated ad hominem attacks or your repeated posts about mid-term polls.
+1 (in the still-mourned absence of the Like button)
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
There's a reason why the period 1945 - 1957 was called Austerity Britain. Governments sought to run balanced budgets at the same time as spending a huge proportion of national income on the armed forces. We didn't even scrap rationing until 1954. Public spending, as a share of national income, was well below its current level under the Conservative governments of the 1950's.
The Attlee Government was cutting back on Defence expenditure post World War 2 until the Korean War came along in 1950 and rather destabilized the administration. The system of rationing was needed to avoid a repeat of what had happened post - World War 1 when a very severe slump followed a short period of rapid growth. Pent up demand from World War 2 carried serious risks of inflation & Balance of Payments problems until the economy was able to return to a peacetime footing.Direct Controls and high taxation was,therefore, necessary to restrain demand and make room for exports. The economy was much better managed than under Lloyd George in the 1918 - 1922 period.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
Identity politics are tremendously popular at the moment. Brexit being the transcendent manifestation of IP.
Identity politics is just an ungainly and unlovely neologism. People voting in what they percieve to be _their_ best interests is as old as the hills.
@Anazina could do well to understand this, rather than obsessing about pitting what he conceives to be his 'goodies' against my 'baddies'.
Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
You are wilfully misinterpreting what identity politics means to suit your own agenda.
+1 is not a meme. It is the easiest way users of this particular forum software have of indicating their support or approval.
And if you dislike how people comport themselves on here, just leave. We don't benefit from your repeated ad hominem attacks or your repeated posts about mid-term polls.
+1
"Ad hominem attacks" –– another god awful PB cliche that deserves to be put out of its misery.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
A call to action against a few individual super rich tax exiles, for the greater benefit of the remaining individuals who aren't super rich tax exiles?
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
The deficit in 1957 was below 3% not above 10%
I am aware of that - indeed in some years it was a fair bit lower than that. The Budget Deficit has now been at manageable levels for several years - and Interest payments on the National Debt are well below the burden faced by Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor from 1931 - 1937.
It's only been at manageable levels because of austerity though. Without austerity it would have been at unmanageable levels still.
The burden we should be bequeathing the next generation shouldn't be the burden of World Wars. That's not the standard I hold ourselves to.
Many Keynesian economists would disagree - and argue that austerity delayed the recovery already taking place in 2010 and the subsequent improvement in the Public Finances.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
Identity politics are tremendously popular at the moment. Brexit being the transcendent manifestation of IP.
Identity politics is just an ungainly and unlovely neologism. People voting in what they percieve to be _their_ best interests is as old as the hills.
@Anazina could do well to understand this, rather than obsessing about pitting what he conceives to be his 'goodies' against my 'baddies'.
Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such.
I loathe identity politics, but I am not the one pushing it. You are a hypocrite.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
A call to action against a few individual super rich tax exiles, for the greater benefit of the remaining individuals who aren't super rich tax exiles?
"Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such."
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Hoity toity. There is nothing particularly identity-politics about the issues surrounding Brexit. Your problem is that your side ran a worse campaign than their opponents, and lost, and rather than accept that result you want to call the other side names. To call somebody a name is to impose an identity on them, and that is where the identity politics comes from.
I was a lukewarm remainer at the time of the vote. I am a passionate remainer now. I accept that I should have cared enough to get out there and campaigned for remain - and I am a lazy arse for not doing so. So are you, and wibbling nonsense about xenophobic liars and nostalgic fogeys doesn't make you look one bit better.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Another mega set of borrowing figures. The economy continues to surprise on the upside.
What I find interesting is that buried away in table 3 is an increase in IT of £3.4bn in IT, a 6% increase yoy. It is not easy to reconcile that with the figures for increases in real wages. There is also a near 6% increase in VAT receipts. Both of these figures suggest to me that the economy is growing somewhat faster than the GDP figures indicate.
The hard numbers of tax receipts and employment both strongly suggest that the estimate that is GDP is wrong. Think the rapidly changing economy isn't accurately reflected by official stats. GDP growth is clearly higher than the ONS think.
Being charitable to the ONS, maybe they think/have been told that the Brexit settlement will be more expensive/onerous/out of reach if the UK economy is motoring ahead of the Eurozone whilst we are negotiating terms......
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
A call to action against a few individual super rich tax exiles, for the greater benefit of the remaining individuals who aren't super rich tax exiles?
"Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such."
Your words, not mine. LOL.
And the agenda of tax exiles is considered unacceptable. What is your problem here?
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Hoity toity. There is nothing particularly identity-politics about the issues surrounding Brexit. Your problem is that your side ran a worse campaign than their opponents, and lost, and rather than accept that result you want to call the other side names. To call somebody a name is to impose an identity on them, and that is where the identity politics comes from.
I was a lukewarm remainer at the time of the vote. I am a passionate remainer now. I accept that I should have cared enough to get out there and campaigned for remain - and I am a lazy arse for not doing so. So are you, and wibbling nonsense about xenophobic liars and nostalgic fogeys doesn't make you look one bit better.
I was merely noting the rank hypocrisy of one poster – which I stand by. My campaigning or otherwise on Brexit is immaterial.
A nicely argued but panglossian view of the Labout prospects. A left wing social view without the economics is being a middle-class liberal. You've certainly gained LDs and Greens, at the expense of some old-fashioned, working class labourites. The tribal loyalties are strong but slowly changing. The gamble is that the loss in one area is less than the gain in the other.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
At least one PB Leaver accepts (some of) the truth.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
At least one PB Leaver accepts (some of) the truth.
We are making progress.
Not really. You appear to believe that you have some unique insight to, and monopoly of, 'the truth'. All movements are broad churches, whether that's Labour (or even Momentum) , the Conservatives or Brexiteers. That's hardly profound, and in terms of political utility, of low value.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
A call to action against a few individual super rich tax exiles, for the greater benefit of the remaining individuals who aren't super rich tax exiles?
"Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such."
Your words, not mine. LOL.
And the agenda of tax exiles is considered unacceptable. What is your problem here?
Are you pro tax exiles?
Not at all. It was you who split the country into two groups – tax exiles and non-tax exiles.
"But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
Identity politics 1.01.
"But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
You don't think the first paragraph affects the meaning of the second enough to be worth quoting?
And saying "Identity politics 1.01" (by mistake for "Identity politics 101") isn't an argument, it means nothing. If you think the speech constitutes identity politics, make the case.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
At least one PB Leaver accepts (some of) the truth.
We are making progress.
Not really. You appear to believe that you have some unique insight to, and monopoly of, 'the truth'. All movements are broad churches, whether that's Labour (or even Momentum) , the Conservatives or Brexiteers. That's hardly profound, and in terms of political utility, of low value.
Do you really want me to ask HYUFD to explain to you again that Brexit was all about immigration?
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
At least one PB Leaver accepts (some of) the truth.
We are making progress.
But you must acknowledge that the ongoing Remain campaign is full of identity politics too: regrettably a large part of that group identity is being forged in disparaging those who voted Leave. (This is partly because they have no chance of getting enough people to see their identity as primarily European).
Seeing Brexit as "the ultimate identity-political programme" is therefore a stretch.
And both votes contained plenty of liberals who reject the identity-politics prism, when it comes to their own vote (as do I). We can analyse the coalitions, but your attack on @Mortimer was cheap.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
At least one PB Leaver accepts (some of) the truth.
We are making progress.
Not really. You appear to believe that you have some unique insight to, and monopoly of, 'the truth'. All movements are broad churches, whether that's Labour (or even Momentum) , the Conservatives or Brexiteers. That's hardly profound, and in terms of political utility, of low value.
Do you really want me to ask HYUFD to explain to you again that Brexit was all about immigration?
It's like waiting for a bus. You don't need to ask, I'm sure he'll be along to re-inform me in due course.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
A call to action against a few individual super rich tax exiles, for the greater benefit of the remaining individuals who aren't super rich tax exiles?
"Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such."
Your words, not mine. LOL.
And the agenda of tax exiles is considered unacceptable. What is your problem here?
Are you pro tax exiles?
Not at all. It was you who split the country into two groups – tax exiles and non-tax exiles.
Who can forget May Mk 1's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech? The ultimate identity-political call to action.
That was a [contentiously interpreted] line in a speech.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
At least one PB Leaver accepts (some of) the truth.
We are making progress.
Not really. You appear to believe that you have some unique insight to, and monopoly of, 'the truth'. All movements are broad churches, whether that's Labour (or even Momentum) , the Conservatives or Brexiteers. That's hardly profound, and in terms of political utility, of low value.
Do you really want me to ask HYUFD to explain to you again that Brexit was all about immigration?
It's like waiting for a bus. You don't need to ask, I'm sure he'll be along to re-inform me in due course.
Depends where you're waiting for the bus. Islington? No probs. Hough on the Hill? More problematic so v happy to ask him over.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their particular party. It is human nature to do so. Events can stretch a person's loyalty until it snaps and it's interesting to see when that happens. Usually the explanation given is that 'I have not left the Party, it has left me'. Parties do change, sometimes quite quickly, and many members probably spend a lot of their time only partly satisfied with their chosen party. The same goes for general voters, would Proportional Representation help?
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Like I said a reasonable person!. Any chance of getting the rest of your Party to agree?
"But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
Identity politics 1.01.
"But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
You don't think the first paragraph affects the meaning of the second enough to be worth quoting?
And saying "Identity politics 1.01" (by mistake for "Identity politics 101") isn't an argument, it means nothing. If you think the speech constitutes identity politics, make the case.
Rather like Maggie’s famous quote about society, the PM’s words are often taken well out of context. She was talking about the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons, the Starbuckses, Googles and Facebooks - those who make money in the U.K. put pay little in tax on the proceeds.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
"But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
Identity politics 1.01.
"But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
You don't think the first paragraph affects the meaning of the second enough to be worth quoting?
Actually, I think the first paragraph you cite makes the point even more strongly. May is deliberately trying to draw a wedge between those people who travel globally and meet senior people (and probably live in places like London) and those who remained rooted and associate mostly or exclusively with people in their local area (and probably live in small towns and suburbs).
Yet those different lifestyles are often found within close families. I would fall into the first category, my inlaws (to whom I am very close and fond of) firmly into the latter.
Why was the Prime Minister trying to segregate these two groups with her words?
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
"But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
Identity politics 1.01.
"But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
You don't think the first paragraph affects the meaning of the second enough to be worth quoting?
And saying "Identity politics 1.01" (by mistake for "Identity politics 101") isn't an argument, it means nothing. If you think the speech constitutes identity politics, make the case.
Rather like Maggie’s famous quote about society, the PM’s words are often taken well out of context. She was talking about the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons, the Starbuckses, Googles and Facebooks - those who make money in the U.K. put pay little in tax on the proceeds.
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
But the point is that it was a burden we were able to bear!When Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the National Debt to GDP figure was 120% - yet he saw no need fo Austerity which had been abandoned circa 1949/50 when the figure was circa 200%.. It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
However, much has changed since then. If we were to go back to similar levels of NHS spending as a proportion of GDP and pensions spending as a proportion of GDP, that'd be valid. But between them, you're looking at an increase of about 15% of GDP since then, and nearly half of all public spending.
And these are only going to increase. While we could cut, say, defence expenditure a long way as a proportion of GDP to balance the debt repayments and interest, we damn well can't cut health spending or pensions the same way.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
HYUFD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a red light and a deafening alarm going off somewhere in darkest Epping Forest, and a man racing through the bosky surrounds towards a connected internet device...
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Indeed I'm in that 43%. In fact I'm not just a graduate but have a postgraduate degree too. Which makes the claim that only the uneducated voted for Brexit ring rather hollow. The reality is far more complex than that
"But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
Identity politics 1.01.
"But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
You don't think the first paragraph affects the meaning of the second enough to be worth quoting?
And saying "Identity politics 1.01" (by mistake for "Identity politics 101") isn't an argument, it means nothing. If you think the speech constitutes identity politics, make the case.
Rather like Maggie’s famous quote about society, the PM’s words are often taken well out of context. She was talking about the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons, the Starbuckses, Googles and Facebooks - those who make money in the U.K. put pay little in tax on the proceeds.
Not exclusively, she wasn't. Far from it.
I tend to agree with you on this. Much of that passage did deal with the Philip Greens of this world and the point about them was well made. But the citizens of nowhere statement, given the context, and where it was made and following the Brexit vote, went wider than just rich non-tax paying individuals and was divisive at a time when her speech should have tried to unify and reach out. It was a bad misjudgment.
"Working hard might make you rich, but a more likely route is to inherit wealth and find a good tax lawyer."
Link? ;-)
Interesting piece, thanks Nick. We're clearly more culturally liberal as a nation, and a good thing too viz. your examples of sexism, racism and homophobia.
However I think the economic picture is far more nuanced - e.g. attitudes to benefits, expectations of / desire for a job-for-life, consumer satisfaction with Amazon/Uber etc. all paint the younger generation as more classically right wing.
He can't provide one. For the first time (I think) the Sunday Times rich list was overwhelmingly weighted to people who have built businesses rather than inherited wealth*
(* although they did include the lady who owns Heineken and Kirsty Bertarelli as businesswomen - the first inherited her wealth and Kirsty married it)
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
Oh get over yourself.
Of course we distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. We had decided to limit the restrictions on the entrance of some non-nationals (though there were still plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
@Cyclefree "Re the story about Corbyn’s secretary putting together a guide to how not to vote for Jews, three questions:
1. I thought it was a breach of Labour party rules to urge people not to vote for Labour candidates? If so, wouldn’t advising people not to vote for Jewish Labour candidates also be a breach?
2. Would a secretary really do this off her own bat without her boss knowing or approving it, expressly or impliedly?
3. Who is leaking this stuff to the papers and why now?"
Corbyn's secretary, Nicolette Petersen, is an officer of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign responsible for "Parliamentary Affairs". The issue of Palestine News in which her 'don't vote Jew' article appeared also had an article by Corbyn so he'd have had to have known about it.
I doubt this has been leaked by anyone; I'd guess that so many people are now searching the internet for Corbyn related stories that everything online about him or his associates will be shared with us soon.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
HYUFD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Empirically, net migration to the UK in the 80s and 90s was pretty much a wash (though god knows how the economy grew, act of God most like). Since 2000, we've had net migration of around 3.5m people, at which point a good chunk of the electorate spat the dummy. I think HYUFD might be onto something, though as a citizen of the world (the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe, as one used to write in one's exercise book) I am far above such petty concerns.
So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
Oh get over yourself.
Of course we distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. We had decided to limit the restrictions on the entrance of some non-nationals (though there were still plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
So non-national EU migrants can't claim welfare? They can't claim tax credits etc? They get charged to use the NHS? They're treated the same as non-European non-nationals?
I'd have no problem with abolishing the cap on migration globally so long as those who arrive pay for the NHS usage and can't claim any welfare at all. They can come here, pay taxes and support themselves. After years of being law abiding residents they can claim citizenship at which point they would stop paying for the NHS etc
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
As to whether it was wazzockry at all, perhaps we should wait until the end of this Parliament and see how much higher the NHS budget is per week versus at the time of that bus? £350m? Higher? Lower?
So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
Oh get over yourself.
Of course we distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. We had decided to limit the restrictions on the entrance of some non-nationals (though there were still plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
So non-national EU migrants can't claim welfare? They can't claim tax credits etc? They get charged to use the NHS? They're treated the same as non-European non-nationals?
I'd have no problem with abolishing the cap on migration globally so long as those who arrive pay for the NHS usage and can't claim any welfare at all. They can come here, pay taxes and support themselves. After years of being law abiding residents they can claim citizenship at which point they would stop paying for the NHS etc
We can't do that Phillip, the turnip harvest will barely sustain the few survivors of Brexitarmageddoclypse.
Those public sector finances figures are remarkable. The Tories should go for a balanced budget and then beat Corbyn to death with it.
The public sector finance results are just a seasonal benefit due to the self employed paying their tax every six months.
Err, no. Public borrowing is 40% lower than at the same point last year. It is a real improvement.
But the PSBR has not really been a key macroeconomic indicator since World War 2 - unlike Inflation - the Balance of Payments - Unemployment - and Economic Growth. Moreover, throughout the last 10 years the National Debt to GDP ratio has remained well below the levels we saw from World War 1 until the mid- 1960s.
Paying for two World Wars is a good reason for a high debt to GDP ratio. Live now, (someone else) pay later is not a good reason.
B.
There's a reason why the period 1945 - 1957 was called Austerity Britain. Governments sought to run balanced budgets at the same time as spending a huge proportion of national income on the armed forces. We didn't even scrap rationing until 1954. Public spending, as a share of national income, was well below its current level under the Conservative governments of the 1950's.
The Attlee Government was cutting back on Defence expenditure post World War 2 until the Korean War came along in 1950 and rather destabilized the administration. The system of rationing was needed to avoid a repeat of what had happened post - World War 1 when a very severe slump followed a short period of rapid growth. Pent up demand from World War 2 carried serious risks of inflation & Balance of Payments problems until the economy was able to return to a peacetime footing.Direct Controls and high taxation was,therefore, necessary to restrain demand and make room for exports. The economy was much better managed than under Lloyd George in the 1918 - 1922 period.
Sure, but for twelve years or so, both Labour and Conservative governments were practising austerity, and one reason for doing so was to reduce the level of national debt relative to the size of the economy.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
Ys.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
HYUFD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Empirically, net migration to the UK in the 80s and 90s was pretty much a wash (though god knows how the economy grew, act of God most like). Since 2000, we've had net migration of around 3.5m people, at which point a good chunk of the electorate spat the dummy. I think HYUFD might be onto something, though as a citizen of the world (the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe, as one used to write in one's exercise book) I am far above such petty concerns.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
As to whether it was wazzockry at all, perhaps we should wait until the end of this Parliament and see how much higher the NHS budget is per week versus at the time of that bus? £350m? Higher? Lower?
That's irrelevant if we're still giving that money to the EU; the money for the NHS would have come from elsewhere, as it probably would even if we'd remained in.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
Ys.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
Indeed. People should just get over these imaginary concerns and become well educated and wealthy like me, then everything would be just peachy. Hail Juncker!
Comments
Dividend taxation applied for the first time to April Tax YE 2017, due by end of Jan 2018
Meaning that the first payment on account for directors who are largely remunerated that way is due July 2018.
But I think it is entirely possible that this is having a huge effect....
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
I want either a GCMG or a Royal Dukedom.
It's all very well to salivate over relatively good PSBR data bu many Keynesian economists argue that we could have reached this point several years earlier had it not been for the deflationary impact of Osborne's policies post -2010.
I shall report back when I've finished it.
But the real watershed, IMO, was the Ray Honeyford affair. All the stuff we read about now about girls being forced to marry, raped, deprived of their education & life choices, “honour” being seen as more important than individual liberty, misuse of the immigration system, a sense of separateness and unwillingness to integrate was there in what he told us. It has grown worse because we ignored it and shot the messenger instead. The cultural left was and remains complicit in this. To its shame.
1. I thought it was a breach of Labour party rules to urge people not to vote for Labour candidates? If so, wouldn’t advising people not to vote for Jewish Labour candidates also be a breach?
2. Would a secretary really do this off her own bat without her boss knowing or approving it, expressly or impliedly?
3. Who is leaking this stuff to the papers and why now?
https://mobile.twitter.com/politicshome/status/1031838238988791809
The cult will claim it is so far in the past as to no longer be relevant.
But it is clear evidence of antisemitism at the heart of Corbyn's office.
It is implausible to believe he was not aware of her attitudes and actions.
The burden we should be bequeathing the next generation shouldn't be the burden of World Wars. That's not the standard I hold ourselves to.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkRegev/status/1031828821241200640
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
+1 is not a meme. It is the easiest way users of this particular forum software have of indicating their support or approval.
And if you dislike how people comport themselves on here, just leave. We don't benefit from your repeated ad hominem attacks or your repeated posts about mid-term polls.
The most sinister feature of Palmer's effort - the anti-muslim accusation against the Tories yet no mention whatsoever of the anti-semitism in his party. He will not even address it - just like his leader. Is anti-semitism part of the instinctive culture of the times he is so fond of?
What have we come to if he is right about the 'culture of the times'? Disgraceful.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime1
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I mean, them Jews have form against Messiahs.
Sweden, Germany etc etc shows what can happen.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such.
"For the Many not the Few" is the Labour Party's current slogan.
Of course the vote for Brexit has elements of identity politics to it: per the Fukuyama article posted earlier it probably makes most sense to see those elements as a reaction to the growth of minority-identity politics. Neither are that desirable.
"Identity politics doesn't recognise that individuals can have their own agenda; and should be treated as such."
Your words, not mine. LOL.
I was a lukewarm remainer at the time of the vote. I am a passionate remainer now. I accept that I should have cared enough to get out there and campaigned for remain - and I am a lazy arse for not doing so. So are you, and wibbling nonsense about xenophobic liars and nostalgic fogeys doesn't make you look one bit better.
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Are you pro tax exiles?
A nicely argued but panglossian view of the Labout prospects. A left wing social view without the economics is being a middle-class liberal. You've certainly gained LDs and Greens, at the expense of some old-fashioned, working class labourites. The tribal loyalties are strong but slowly changing. The gamble is that the loss in one area is less than the gain in the other.
Islington vs Hartlepool. Who will win?
We are making progress.
Powerful point.
Identity politics 1.01.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means."
You don't think the first paragraph affects the meaning of the second enough to be worth quoting?
And saying "Identity politics 1.01" (by mistake for "Identity politics 101") isn't an argument, it means nothing. If you think the speech constitutes identity politics, make the case.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
Seeing Brexit as "the ultimate identity-political programme" is therefore a stretch.
And both votes contained plenty of liberals who reject the identity-politics prism, when it comes to their own vote (as do I). We can analyse the coalitions, but your attack on @Mortimer was cheap.
Any chance of getting the rest of your Party to agree?
Yet those different lifestyles are often found within close families. I would fall into the first category, my inlaws (to whom I am very close and fond of) firmly into the latter.
Why was the Prime Minister trying to segregate these two groups with her words?
Identity politics suited her then.
It doesn't, as much, suit her now.
(Apologies for the typo on 101.)
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
And these are only going to increase. While we could cut, say, defence expenditure a long way as a proportion of GDP to balance the debt repayments and interest, we damn well can't cut health spending or pensions the same way.
(* although they did include the lady who owns Heineken and Kirsty Bertarelli as businesswomen - the first inherited her wealth and Kirsty married it)
Of course we distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. We had decided to limit the restrictions on the entrance of some non-nationals (though there were still plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
1. I thought it was a breach of Labour party rules to urge people not to vote for Labour candidates? If so, wouldn’t advising people not to vote for Jewish Labour candidates also be a breach?
2. Would a secretary really do this off her own bat without her boss knowing or approving it, expressly or impliedly?
3. Who is leaking this stuff to the papers and why now?"
Corbyn's secretary, Nicolette Petersen, is an officer of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign responsible for "Parliamentary Affairs". The issue of Palestine News in which her 'don't vote Jew' article appeared also had an article by Corbyn so he'd have had to have known about it.
I doubt this has been leaked by anyone; I'd guess that so many people are now searching the internet for Corbyn related stories that everything online about him or his associates will be shared with us soon.
I'd have no problem with abolishing the cap on migration globally so long as those who arrive pay for the NHS usage and can't claim any welfare at all. They can come here, pay taxes and support themselves. After years of being law abiding residents they can claim citizenship at which point they would stop paying for the NHS etc
The Doctor
Doctor Who - The Daleks' Masterplan (1966)
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions/populist-skeptics-science-opinion-intl/index.html