Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile, Labour is redefining the domestic consensus
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile, Labour is redefining the domestic consensus
Brexit has created many political casualties already. Whether directly, like David Cameron, or indirectly, like UKIP, the vote to Leave the EU has cut a swathe through the personnel, policies and priorities of the political classes. We can expect many more to fall victim to the process before it ends.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Some of this is not necessarily wrong. We have had the best part of 10 years of financial restraint since Brown's disaster and the deficit is now largely eliminated, albeit debt levels are more than double what they were pre-crash. It is inevitable that the pips are going to be squeaking in various parts of the public sector after such a period. What I think is less forgivable is that this government gives no sense of what its priorities are, what it is hoping to achieve with the additional money now available and why some public spending is good and some is not.
Those Con MPs who chose to save May have been proved to have followed the wrong path. They now need to admit their mistake and right the wrong.
Thatcher and her ministers didn’t let a single interview she did, whether TV or radio, pass without making this argument.
Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.
Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.
It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/08/its-dangerous-full-chaos-of-funding-cuts-in-englands-schools-revealed
is pretty hard to defend, and the Government can't be bothered (I can't even remember who the Education Secretary is).
At that point people say, "Enough of this, let's try the other approach." But the Tory obsession with Brexit has certainly helped Labour define the non-Brexit argument: it feels like a real surprise when Ministers talk about anything but Brexit.
Actually the GFC has destroyed the intellectual underpinnings of both neo-liberalism and monetarism, and Brexit has destroyed the Tory claim to economic competence.
Moreover, the Tories are intellectually exhausted.
This has left the field open to Labour.
Luckily for the Tories, Corbyn himself has no particular interest in domestic policy (he never mentions any in his speeches, just gripes about the ailments of “Tory rule”) and there is no Brown/Osborne figure in the Opposition to lay the ideological foundation that ensures policy hegemony once Labour finally get into power.
The result is that Labour wins on tactics but the wider contest - who will “rule” the 2020s - is still to play for.
It’s likely they might not put the amendment on Mays vote but on the extension , or might wait till later . I think this makes sense . There’s no majority for it yet. Aswell as this Keir Starmer together with the pollster Peter Kellner will be addressing Labour MPs from Leave seats . The myth surrounding those Leave seats and the Labour voters there has been an issue.
One fix we need to look at is the culture behind knives and youths.
Also infant mortality in the third world is still high - yet the one bairn that causes the outrage is the celebrity baby. Shallow. Cry for them all or none - and do something about it - like mega wealthy capitalist Bill Gates has.
So the calls on Socialist Media are for "more police" - what are these extra officers supposed to do? Twiddle their thumbs?
You can of course have a million new police officers, but they won’t make any difference if they can’t stop and search people and can’t chase criminals on bikes.
Obviously if that happened then the unlikely possibiity of a Corbyn premiership might come about. But the problem with that is that with the MPs he's got plus the new ones he'll gain he'll never have enough support on his own side to be any less a lame duck than Mrs May has been.
To throw into the mix, what are the political philosophy of the TIG?
Not convinced though that anyone can beat Boris if he makes last two, so it is down to moderate MPs to engineer things if they want anyone but Boris.
Not that we have officers available to work overtime. My small town shares a neighbourhood policing team with neighbouring small towns. That team has just been cut by 2 PCs.
From it's previous complement of 2 PCs...
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
The continuing deficit now is George Osborne's failure.
I have no sympathy with Begum's plight. True, she was a minor when she voluntarily left the UK, but her words (at least the ones I have heard) since she has resurfaced seem akin to: "Well, we tried, we lost. You must let me come back" - she doesn't seem to accept the horror she chose to become part of, or show any contrition.
(If someone can point me to an interview where she accepts the horrors of ISIS, I'd be grateful.)
I have -5k sympathy with her husband.
I have massive sympathy for the dead child. I'ts heartbreaking.
However: I also have massive sympathy with the other women and children who died because of the actions of the group she chose to join, and which her husband aided, directly or indirectly. They, not Begum, are the victims in this.
It's a hideous mess. But Begum placed herself, and her children, into danger.
Yet I also don't like her being made stateless.
As I said, mixed.
Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.
The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.
The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.
We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.
https://twitter.com/GuardianAnushka/status/1096366354100301824
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/were-at-a-fork-in-the-road-to-hell/
Of course most politicians don’t dare talk about fatherless families, drug criminality and gang culture, when it’s much easier to talk about government spending and police numbers.
I agree.
Selective victimhood allows virtue-signalling with a vengeance.
If Ms Dooley encourages the first world to put its hand in its pocket, more power to her. Perhaps fewer babies would die in the third world then.
It's sad for the misguided girl, but sympathy is in sparse supply. The media thrives on sob-stories so it will run it for all it's worth.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/british-isis-member-sally-jones-white-widow-killed-airstrike-son-islamic-state-syria
It's almost impressive the way that this government has gone from big, tough Javid keeping the British public safe and making it clear that Daesh scum have relinquished their rights to UK citizenship, to bleating feebly about not having the mechanisms to evac people.
Almost impressive if you haven't already priced in them being self-serving, principle-free no marks.
A good idea. Let's make the voting age birth to seven, the future belongs more to them.
Leave the old gits to cogitate and laugh at the pretensions of the arrogant - it's fun.
Great future that Roger
I think you lost us at “soviet style union”.
Tories cutting police was bound to come back and haunt them.
They need this sorting by GE 2022 or Labour will have a massive target.
I tust you won't be using your vote in future?
So as I stated in my previous post, she has a few problems that make things slightly more difficult than others make out.
That she has lost her children is a tragedy but not something that is our doing - it's hers. As ye sow so shall ye reap. Nor do I think we should be spending cash or risking lives to extract her. But I do think she is a British citizen who has right and responsibilities. We seem to be trying to palm her off on a 3rd country she has no immediate connection to - is that the policy now, to try and force British suspected terrorists onto 3rd countries? Or do we take ownership of the situation and bring her to justice?
The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?
Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?
I suspect the charge that Javid has done this for political reasons rather than on the merits of the case may be more damaging that the actual decision itself.
After all that's happened I'm not sure it's reasonable, or even relevant, to judge her by her current thoughts on ISIS, which have sounded thoroughly confused anyway. The issue should be what she's actually done (so far, AFAIK nobody has accused her of anything except being there) and what degree of influence she was under - not what her opinions are. Should the decision be different if she said she was terribly remorseful and planned to join the CoE and the Girl Scouts on returning?
TGOHF is of course right that there are millions of kids in desperate situations and we're focusing on one because it's easier to get our heads round it. But if we are talking about her, my vote on current evidence would be to let her back. The husband? No - if she wants to be with him, then Holland seems to be the natural place.
https://twitter.com/_SalmanAnwar/status/1103714269860892672