Maurice Glasman’s Blue Labour was something I was excited about in the early Ed Miliband years, and I really enjoyed this interview by Giles Fraser, particularly his views on why EU membership is a negative for the working class
EU membership being a negative for the working class is regarded as a good thing by much of the middle class.
The modern middle class lifestyle is dependent upon exploitation.
Tiresome.
Why you perhaps mean to say is that automation and offshoring has caused a collapse in the abundance of higher skilled and well paid working class jobs - the jobs that once lifted individuals and families toward a middle class existence.
Thus, the job market has bifurcated into a low skill/low paid tier, and a professional/high paid tier.
Britain’s relative economic liberalisation - and the lack of any countervening industrial policies per Alanbrooke - mean we are perhaps further down this path than some of our European neighbours. Important to add, though, that perhaps for similar reasons we have globally high employment figures.
Only from a Marxist perspective, are the middle classes “exploitative”. The issues are really due to deep changes in the global economy and not easy to address.
I had a beer with two accept it.
I agree. So what is the solution?
Many of the jobs that those who are now in senior managerial positions now started off in are mechanised - and that is not going to change. In my own field, when I started people subscribed to B2B newsletters, written by journalists, edited by subs, put together by a production team, type-set externally, printed externally and distributed solely for a UK audience. Dozens were involved int he process. Now all of it can be done on one computer by one person, the put on the internet to be seen globally in a moment.
For what its worth I thinbk we need to
- invest heavily in our own infrastructure - we have 2-3 decade gap to fill and its one of the reasons why both our productivity and GDP are sub optimal - decentralise as a coiuntry and put more decision making down to regions where people can influence their own futures - reform corporate and personal taxation to reflect the changes in economy - make our priority raising GDP per head rather than just GDP
Barclay sinking fast ! So the government will ignore the Commons even if by a miracle they find a majority for something !
If they find a majority it is the will of the HOC
I suspect the will of the Commons is for a referendum on May’s deal, even though this has been voted down already.
I don’t believe any or many Tories are going to go for May’s Deal plus Customs Union, whereas Norway requires something like May’s Deal first to get there.
May's deal is deader than a dodo
Like everything in brexit, expect the unexpected
How many confident predictions after GE17 that May was a "dead woman walking"?
How many confident predictions that "Benn-Cooper will pass"?
Barclay sinking fast ! So the government will ignore the Commons even if by a miracle they find a majority for something !
If they find a majority it is the will of the HOC
I suspect the will of the Commons is for a referendum on May’s deal, even though this has been voted down already.
I don’t believe any or many Tories are going to go for May’s Deal plus Customs Union, whereas Norway requires something like May’s Deal first to get there.
May's deal is deader than a dodo
It would look that way but IDS this morning seemed to be blinking and others maybe
Like everything in brexit, expect the unexpected
I expect a GE.
I would be very surprised if we did not have a GE this year, and with a new PM, but not in the next few weeks as it would not resolve anything
IMHO, people with "extreme" views either are, or are close to, a majority of the electorate. I think this is the out working of the Great Financial Crash.
One sees a similar pattern in the USA, France, Italy, the Netherlands.
I think I agree - the extremism isn’t necessarily going in one direction though. We have two sets of Manicheans in each country, each dividing the world on a dualistic basis to a side that can do no wrong and a side that can go no right.
An interesting question is what an extremist is. There are people who have views outside the traditional mainstream who are amiable, talk to anyone and sometimes adjust their views in accordance with reality or points made by other people. I count myself in that group, but wouldn't call them extremists - sometimes the mainstream shifts to reflect what's happening in the world so yesterday's extremists are today's sensible chaps. What is worrying is the growth of factions who hate everyone else, and that can be people with quite mainstream views - it's a matter of temperament as much as belief.
Of course when you get them in combination and take that to its logical conclusion, you end up with Hitler and Pol Pot. But extreme intolerance can be vicious even from people with boringly unexceptional opinions.
Barclay sinking fast ! So the government will ignore the Commons even if by a miracle they find a majority for something !
If they find a majority it is the will of the HOC
I suspect the will of the Commons is for a referendum on May’s deal, even though this has been voted down already.
I don’t believe any or many Tories are going to go for May’s Deal plus Customs Union, whereas Norway requires something like May’s Deal first to get there.
May's deal is deader than a dodo
It would look that way but IDS this morning seemed to be blinking and others maybe
Barclay sinking fast ! So the government will ignore the Commons even if by a miracle they find a majority for something !
If they find a majority it is the will of the HOC
I suspect the will of the Commons is for a referendum on May’s deal, even though this has been voted down already.
I don’t believe any or many Tories are going to go for May’s Deal plus Customs Union, whereas Norway requires something like May’s Deal first to get there.
May's deal is deader than a dodo
It would look that way but IDS this morning seemed to be blinking and others maybe
IMHO, people with "extreme" views either are, or are close to, a majority of the electorate. I think this is the out working of the Great Financial Crash.
One sees a similar pattern in the USA, France, Italy, the Netherlands.
I think I agree - the extremism isn’t necessarily going in one direction though. We have two sets of Manicheans in each country, each dividing the world on a dualistic basis to a side that can do no wrong and a side that can go no right.
An interesting question is what an extremist is. There are people who have views outside the traditional mainstream who are amiable, talk to anyone and sometimes adjust their views in accordance with reality or points made by other people. I count myself in that group, but wouldn't call them extremists - sometimes the mainstream shifts to reflect what's happening in the world so yesterday's extremists are today's sensible chaps. What is worrying is the growth of factions who hate everyone else, and that can be people with quite mainstream views - it's a matter of temperament as much as belief.
Of course when you get them in combination and take that to its logical conclusion, you end up with Hitler and Pol Pot. But extreme intolerance can be vicious even from people with boringly unexceptional opinions.
I prefer the term "ideologue", than extremist. And the key feature that makes them so destructive is a failure to contemplate/accept compromise.
IDS on Marr calls the idea of a Remainer 'cabinet cabal' to replace the PM and install their own leader 'appalling' and that Tory backbenchers will force the Tory membership to be consulted on the next Tory leader. Says May should sack some of the Cabinet too
Mmmm. Tips on leadership from IDS. We are in a pretty pickle.
Barclay sinking fast ! So the government will ignore the Commons even if by a miracle they find a majority for something !
If they find a majority it is the will of the HOC
I suspect the will of the Commons is for a referendum on May’s deal, even though this has been voted down already.
I don’t believe any or many Tories are going to go for May’s Deal plus Customs Union, whereas Norway requires something like May’s Deal first to get there.
May's deal is deader than a dodo
It would look that way but IDS this morning seemed to be blinking and others maybe
I think the idea that the logjam in parliament might not have occurred if May had involved them sooner is rather fanciful. Why has it occurred? Because of inflexible leaver ultras and die hard remainers. Theres no reason to suspect asking them things sooner would have led to more urgency from them.
And the casualty is TM who tried to reflect the 52/48 vote with the least worst exit
She didn't. She tried for a compromise among the 52% and ignored the 48%. She's now wasted 33 months. F*** her.
BTW this morning the petition for Revoke - not just a Ratifying Referendum - has got to 4.9 million whereas I heard on R4 yesterday that one urging a No Deal exit had got to 490,000.
It is not the answer and will not happen unless through a referendum
At the current rate the petition might have reached 5M by tomorrow morning or midday. That's like >10% of registered voters asking for Brexit to be 'recalled'. I don't see how even tin-eared Theresa can refuse Watson's offer yesterday in Parliament Square to approve the deal subject to a ratifying referendum.
TM is subject to the HOC and it will be upto the HOC
However, I do agree that neither the conservative or labour parties will support revoke without a referendum, no matter how many sign the revoke petition. The biggest roadblock for your course of action now is Corbyn, and many on his front bench, who do not support a referendum, hence why he was hiding in Morecambe yesterday and making a fool of himself with a large dog
He went to Morecambe but it wasn't Wise. As someone said on twitter
Yes as the photo of him with Eric's statue demonstrated
You would be surprised how popular that statue is, visitors literally queue up to take up the "Wise" pose. Someone once sawed him off at the ankle, it was a few years ago. I think they have a spare Eric in case he gets nicked for scrap metal.
I think the idea that the logjam in parliament might not have occurred if May had involved them sooner is rather fanciful. Why has it occurred? Because of inflexible leaver ultras and die hard remainers. Theres no reason to suspect asking them things sooner would have led to more urgency from them.
And the casualty is TM who tried to reflect the 52/48 vote with the least worst exit
She didn't. She tried for a compromise among the 52% and ignored the 48%. She's now wasted 33 months. F*** her.
BTW this morning the petition for Revoke - not just a Ratifying Referendum - has got to 4.9 million whereas I heard on R4 yesterday that one urging a No Deal exit had got to 490,000.
It is not the answer and will not happen unless through a referendum
At the current rate the petition might have reached 5M by tomorrow morning or midday. That's like >10% of registered voters asking for Brexit to be 'recalled'. I don't see how even tin-eared Theresa can refuse Watson's offer yesterday in Parliament Square to approve the deal subject to a ratifying referendum.
TM is subject to the HOC and it will be upto the HOC
However, I do agree that neither the conservative or labour parties will support revoke without a referendum, no matter how many sign the revoke petition. The biggest roadblock for your course of action now is Corbyn, and many on his front bench, who do not support a referendum, hence why he was hiding in Morecambe yesterday and making a fool of himself with a large dog
He went to Morecambe but it wasn't Wise. As someone said on twitter
Yes as the photo of him with Eric's statue demonstrated
You would be surprised how popular that statue is, visitors literally queue up to take up the "Wise" pose. Someone once sawed him off at the ankle, it was a few years ago. I think they have a spare Eric in case he gets nicked for scrap metal.
It is a wonderful statue of a national treasure unlike Corbyn acting the fool
I agree with the last sentence. But there's something far bigger going on there.
30-40 years ago, my peer group of the professional middle-class (save for academics and those really immersed in the public sector) would have been overwhelmingly Conservative.
Today, that isn't the case, and hasn't been for some time. The middle-class have definitively drifted to becoming socially liberal, internationalist, pro-higher taxation, re-distributive, economically soft-left in all other ways, and embrace identity politics with both arms.
This is *not* the case for those over the age of about 50-55, but very much is for those beneath, and is even more pronounced amongst females.
Yes, I agree from the opposite perspective - in general when I canvass I feel optimistic when the door is answered by a middle-aged person who is obviously middle-class but not especially smartly-dressed - they are absolutely the core Labour group now. Working-class support for Labour has retreated to the loyalist traditionalists, though others aren't reliably Tory either - many just don't vote, and are a potential seed bed for right-wing populism. I worry about the latter, but the former feels very much like my peer group coming round.
I would divide the population into 4 groups:
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc 2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories 3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers 4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
As in all revolutions, both sides have continued to radicalise. Calls for no deal were rare before the referendum, while support for joining the single currency has grown since 2016. t.
Were than their preceding generations.
The Conservative party is 80% + Eurosceptic. This used to be just the membership - since the Brexit vote it has been their vote, too.
Revoke will never happen because of this; long delay is death by a thousand cuts (the deepest of which would be the MEP elections).
Ioint other than it is very easy for your personal experiences to be misleading.
Your friends have lost.
The Conservative party is now pre-2016 UKIP: hard right, deeply anti-EU, xenophobic and English nationalist. All those vying to take over from May know this very clearly.
Do not judge all of us as ERG supporters. I am a conservative member who rejects their views of the unattainable aims of no deal
And I was a Labour member who rejected the anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism of the far left. I lost and so have you, I'm afraid. There are good, moderate Tory members, just as there are still good, moderate Labour members. But the direction of travel in both parties is clear.
You misunderstand how the conservative party functions with its membership. We choose our leader (sometimes) and we choose our MPs and put leaflets through the door for them. The involvement ends largely there.
And there is part of the present problem, once chosen and elected, they hold no respect for or listen to the membership who get them elected. Whether you agree or not, for many years the PLP acted the same way and many of them are now paying the price of change. To revitalise the Conservative Party, there will have to be some sort of realignment between the PCP and the members. While looking at the antics of the PM, Cabinet and PCP many of the members must be in despair, just before local elections are due and a possible GE
Applying the same principle to referendums: the Swiss model of referendums acts as a socially conservative brake on society by restricting government policy. As a result some social conservatives here could see their use as great for the UK but progressives would hate them.
Yep. Thus why women didn't get the vote in Switzerland until 26 years after the first nuclear explosion, and a decade after the first human went into space.
I agree with the last sentence. But there's something far bigger going on there.
30-40 years ago, my peer group of the professional middle-class (save for academics and those really immersed in the public sector) would have been overwhelmingly Conservative.
Today, that isn't the case, and hasn't been for some time. The middle-class have definitively drifted to becoming socially liberal, internationalist, pro-higher taxation, re-distributive, economically soft-left in all other ways, and embrace identity politics with both arms.
This is *not* the case for those over the age of about 50-55, but very much is for those beneath, and is even more pronounced amongst females.
Yes, I agree from the opposite perspective - in general when I canvass I feel optimistic when the door is answered by a middle-aged person who is obviously middle-class but not especially smartly-dressed - they are absolutely the core Labour group now. Working-class support for Labour has retreated to the loyalist traditionalists, though others aren't reliably Tory either - many just don't vote, and are a potential seed bed for right-wing populism. I worry about the latter, but the former feels very much like my peer group coming round.
I would divide the population into 4 groups:
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc 2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories 3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers 4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
That fits with what John Curtice said on the video linked here yesterday
I agree with the last sentence. But there's something far bigger going on there.
30-40 years ago, my peer group of the professional middle-class (save for academics and those really immersed in the public sector) would have been overwhelmingly Conservative.
Today, that isn't the case, and hasn't been for some time. The middle-class have definitively drifted to becoming socially liberal, internationalist, pro-higher taxation, re-distributive, economically soft-left in all other ways, and embrace identity politics with both arms.
This is *not* the case for those over the age of about 50-55, but very much is for those beneath, and is even more pronounced amongst females.
Yes, I agree from the opposite perspective - in general when I canvass I feel optimistic when the door is answered by a middle-aged person who is obviously middle-class but not especially smartly-dressed - they are absolutely the core Labour group now. Working-class support for Labour has retreated to the loyalist traditionalists, though others aren't reliably Tory either - many just don't vote, and are a potential seed bed for right-wing populism. I worry about the latter, but the former feels very much like my peer group coming round.
I would divide the population into 4 groups:
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc 2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories 3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers 4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
That fits with what John Curtice said on the video linked here yesterday
I agree with the last sentence. But there's something far bigger going on there.
30-40 years ago, my peer group of the professional middle-class (save for academics and those really immersed in the public sector) would have been overwhelmingly Conservative.
Today, that isn't the case, and hasn't been for some time. The middle-class have definitively drifted to becoming socially liberal, internationalist, pro-higher taxation, re-distributive, economically soft-left in all other ways, and embrace identity politics with both arms.
This is *not* the case for those over the age of about 50-55, but very much is for those beneath, and is even more pronounced amongst females.
Yes, I agree from the opposite perspective - in general when I canvass I feel optimistic when the door is answered by a middle-aged person who is obviously middle-class but not especially smartly-dressed - they are absolutely the core Labour group now. Working-class support for Labour has retreated to the loyalist traditionalists, though others aren't reliably Tory either - many just don't vote, and are a potential seed bed for right-wing populism. I worry about the latter, but the former feels very much like my peer group coming round.
I would divide the population into 4 groups:
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc 2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories 3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers 4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
That fits with what John Curtice said on the video linked here yesterday
I am in group 1
As am I. I get pushed into 2 when progressives go too far towards Nanny State idiocy, then bounce back. My brother does the same between 3 and 4.
Embrace no deal ! More delusional nonsense if they think MPs will allow that .
Damian Green seems to be out of place in that list. I thought he was a Remain supporter. I would be surprised if he has switched to No Deal.
He is.
He is also a friend of 40 years standing - and will give it to her straight.
If he says the game is up, it is - though I suspect as he heartily loathes the other attendees he'll try to suggest a way out.
The way out is to vote the PM's WA through this week and have the PM resign after the WA is passed into law.
That has long looked the best way out. To get May's Deal over the line, I would have offered a HoC Brexit Committee weighted, but made up of all parties. The Committee would be entitled to a representative in the room at all negotiations with the EU; and with the Committee able to make recommendations to Parliament. If acceptable to the EU, those recommendations would have to be specifically voted down by Parliament, or they would form the basis of our trade deal. I can't see how else you take this away from the Legislature, who have shown themselves to be woeful when acting in place of the Executive.
The only thing that would override this arrangement would be a new Govt. with a different manifesto mandate following an election. So Labour, would you really want to push for a General Election that might give you greater power over Brexit - but might also take it away from you?
Of course, if the ERG VONC the government they are automatically barred from standing as Conservative MPs.
As ever, I fear they have not thought this through....
It would be the DUP who VONC. The Prime Minister then visits HMQ to suggest a new leader who could have the support of the house (i.e. a DUP friendly leader) or accepts a GE.
I think we're almost certainly heading towards a US situation with our political parties here in the UK, with social attitudes being the main divider rather than economics. So I'd expect Labour to win Chipping Barnet at the next election, and the Tories Bishop Auckland.
I think the idea that the logjam in parliament might not have occurred if May had involved them sooner is rather fanciful. Why has it occurred? Because of inflexible leaver ultras and die hard remainers. Theres no reason to suspect asking them things sooner would have led to more urgency from them.
And the casualty is TM who tried to reflect the 52/48 vote with the least worst exit
She didn't. She tried for a compromise among the 52% and ignored the 48%. She's now wasted 33 months. F*** her.
BTW this morning the petition for Revoke - not just a Ratifying Referendum - has got to 4.9 million whereas I heard on R4 yesterday that one urging a No Deal exit had got to 490,000.
It is not the answer and will not happen unless through a referendum
At the current rate the petition might have reached 5M by tomorrow morning or midday. That's like >10% of registered voters asking for Brexit to be 'recalled'. I don't see how even tin-eared Theresa can refuse Watson's offer yesterday in Parliament Square to approve the deal subject to a ratifying referendum.
TM is subject to the HOC and it will be upto the HOC
However, I do agree that neither the conservative or labour parties will support revoke without a referendum, no matter how many sign the revoke petition. The biggest roadblock for your course of action now is Corbyn, and many on his front bench, who do not support a referendum, hence why he was hiding in Morecambe yesterday and making a fool of himself with a large dog
He went to Morecambe but it wasn't Wise. As someone said on twitter
Yes as the photo of him with Eric's statue demonstrated
You would be surprised how popular that statue is, visitors literally queue up to take up the "Wise" pose. Someone once sawed him off at the ankle, it was a few years ago. I think they have a spare Eric in case he gets nicked for scrap metal.
It is a wonderful statue of a national treasure unlike Corbyn acting the fool
Of course, if the ERG VONC the government they are automatically barred from standing as Conservative MPs.
As ever, I fear they have not thought this through....
It would be the DUP who VONC. The Prime Minister then visits HMQ to suggest a new leader who could have the support of the house (i.e. a DUP friendly leader) or accepts a GE.
Depends on abstentions. And how attached to their salaries Stormont members are.
I think we're almost certainly heading towards a US situation with our political parties here in the UK, with social attitudes being the main divider rather than economics. So I'd expect Labour to win Chipping Barnet at the next election, and the Tories Bishop Auckland.
I agree with the last sentence. But there's something far bigger going on there.
30-40 years ago, my peer group of the professional middle-class (save for academics and those really immersed in the public sector) would have been overwhelmingly Conservative.
Today, that isn't the case, and hasn't been for some time. The middle-class have definitively drifted to becoming socially liberal, internationalist, pro-higher taxation, re-distributive, economically soft-left in all other ways, and embrace identity politics with both arms.
This is *not* the case for those over the age of about 50-55, but very much is for those beneath, and is even more pronounced amongst females.
Yes, I agree from the opposite perspective - in general when I canvass I feel optimistic when the door is answered by a middle-aged person who is obviously middle-class but not especially smartly-dressed - they are absolutely the core Labour group now. Working-class support for Labour has retreated to the loyalist traditionalists, though others aren't reliably Tory either - many just don't vote, and are a potential seed bed for right-wing populism. I worry about the latter, but the former feels very much like my peer group coming round.
I would divide the population into 4 groups:
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc 2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories 3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers 4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
The 'socially liberal' being especially so when they benefit but rather less so when they don't.
Though that applies to all groups both economically and socially to varying degrees.
Of course, if the ERG VONC the government they are automatically barred from standing as Conservative MPs.
As ever, I fear they have not thought this through....
It would be the DUP who VONC. The Prime Minister then visits HMQ to suggest a new leader who could have the support of the house (i.e. a DUP friendly leader) or accepts a GE.
Depends on abstentions. And how attached to their salaries Stormont members are.
I don't see the ERG supporting a VONC. They have won the soul of their party. There are lots of Tory MPs who are in seats where there are motivated remain voters who will want them out. The next leader - if it goes to the members - will almost certainly be a leaver. The Remain MPs will not be in the ascendency in either Government or Opposition under that leader. Of course I may be wrong :-)
Barclay sinking fast ! So the government will ignore the Commons even if by a miracle they find a majority for something !
If they find a majority it is the will of the HOC
I suspect the will of the Commons is for a referendum on May’s deal, even though this has been voted down already.
I don’t believe any or many Tories are going to go for May’s Deal plus Customs Union, whereas Norway requires something like May’s Deal first to get there.
May's deal is deader than a dodo
It would look that way but IDS this morning seemed to be blinking and others maybe
W.R.T. professional voters, the big shift came under Thatcher/Major. That's when seats like Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle Central, Streatham, Leeds NE and NW, Edinburgh C and S, Birmingham Edgbaston, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol W etc. all swung away from the Conservatives, and never came back. 40 years ago, many of the people on yesterday's March would have been Conservatives. Now, I doubt if even 5% would be.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
I think we're almost certainly heading towards a US situation with our political parties here in the UK, with social attitudes being the main divider rather than economics. So I'd expect Labour to win Chipping Barnet at the next election, and the Tories Bishop Auckland.
ho ho
Great because that is really working out well for the American working class.
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc 2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories 3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers 4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
I realised reading this that I didn't naturally fit into any of those groups. Which obviously got me thinking why? I think the problem with those definitions is that they ignore one of the big splits in politics which revolves around the role of Government in peoples lives. Both the socially liberal and the socially conservative can be on either side of this debate. I count myself as extremely socially liberal but also extremely anti-statist so I could never see myself in a grouping that either the Blairites/Cameroons or the Guardian readers.
This is also in part what drove some of the anti-EU sentiment - the idea that whatever it might be doing whether good or bad, there is something fundamentally wrong with remote, unaccountable governance. This is a view that will only strengthen if the politicians decide to abandon Brexit.
I think we're almost certainly heading towards a US situation with our political parties here in the UK, with social attitudes being the main divider rather than economics. So I'd expect Labour to win Chipping Barnet at the next election, and the Tories Bishop Auckland.
ho ho
Great because that is really working out well for the American working class.
It's probably coincidence, but blue collar wages have risen strongly under Trump.
W.R.T. professional voters, the big shift came under Thatcher/Major. That's when seats like Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle Central, Streatham, Leeds NE and NW, Edinburgh C and S, Birmingham Edgbaston, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol W etc. all swung away from the Conservatives, and never came back. 40 years ago, many of the people on yesterday's March would have been Conservatives. Now, I doubt if even 5% would be.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
There are still many areas of the country where there's an old-fashioned middle-class Conservative vote which is still fairly socially conservative. It's just that it tends to be in parts of the country which the liberal media almost never visit and have almost forgotten about. I'm talking about the middle-class areas of counties like Lancashire, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Shopshire, etc. Very un-sexy parts of the country as far as the metropolitan elite are concerned, which they would never willingly visit. But those counties have just as many middle-class areas as working-class ones. The media tend to assume that they're mainly working-class, which isn't correct. Stafford, for example, is more of a middle-class town than a working-class one. It had one of the highest Remain votes in the West Midlands at the referendum, for instance.
Of course, if the ERG VONC the government they are automatically barred from standing as Conservative MPs.
As ever, I fear they have not thought this through....
Barclay doesn't quite say that, though he's hinting it. He is of course correct that if Parliament instructs the Government to do something the Government thinks insane, then they can refuse, at risk of a VONC for contempt of Parliament. In that case, an election makes sense, but only if people who disagree with the Government stand on a different platform - it'd be nuts to have, sat, Grieve, standing as a Tory candidate if the Tory manifesto was to implement no deal. We are all very dubious about deselections, but voters are entitled to think that if they vote for a candidate of party X then by and large the candidate will normally support X's policies.
Of course, if the ERG VONC the government they are automatically barred from standing as Conservative MPs.
As ever, I fear they have not thought this through....
We are all very dubious about deselections, but voters are entitled to think that if they vote for a candidate of party X then by and large the candidate will normally support X's policies.
I'm no fan of deselections, but if they vote for a candidate of party X then by and large the candidate will normally support X's policies rather seems to have flown out the window for a non-trivial number of Tories.
Seems slightly unlikely, given that it depends upon her agreement. Why would she tie her political future to a campaign which currently had around a one in four chance of gaining the nomination ? She’d be better served by a Senate run, or waiting until the nominee is settled.
And if Biden were to get the nomination, there would be plenty of scenarios in which (for instance) Harris might make more sense.
Floating the possibility makes a great deal of sense, though.
Why would Damien Green be on the "other side" - he's not an ERG loon.
He's a Malthouse compromiser, so has in some sense gone over to the dark side.
Yes, I was disappointed with Green. Immediately after the referendum he got carried away by the whole 'the people have spoken' guff. It may have sounded very noble at the time, but as Theresa's transformation into a mad demagogue has shown - left unfettered such notions can become deadly.
W.R.T. professional voters, the big shift came under Thatcher/Major. That's when seats like Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle Central, Streatham, Leeds NE and NW, Edinburgh C and S, Birmingham Edgbaston, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol W etc. all swung away from the Conservatives, and never came back. 40 years ago, many of the people on yesterday's March would have been Conservatives. Now, I doubt if even 5% would be.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
There are still many areas of the country where there's an old-fashioned middle-class Conservative vote which is still fairly socially conservative. It's just that it tends to be in parts of the country which the liberal media almost never visit and have almost forgotten about. I'm talking about the middle-class areas of counties like Lancashire, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Shopshire, etc. Very un-sexy parts of the country as far as the metropolitan elite are concerned, which they would never willingly visit. But those counties have just as many middle-class areas as working-class ones. The media tend to assume that they're mainly working-class, which isn't correct. Stafford, for example, is more of a middle-class town than a working-class one. It had one of the highest Remain votes in the West Midlands at the referendum, for instance.
Many working class areas in those counties and in ex mining areas are also far more middle class than they were in previous decades.
W.R.T. professional voters, the big shift came under Thatcher/Major. That's when seats like Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle Central, Streatham, Leeds NE and NW, Edinburgh C and S, Birmingham Edgbaston, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol W etc. all swung away from the Conservatives, and never came back. 40 years ago, many of the people on yesterday's March would have been Conservatives. Now, I doubt if even 5% would be.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
To what extent are the changes in those seats due to a mixture of boundary changes and significant underlying demographic changes? Brighton Pavilion was a safe Tory seat when represented by Julian Amery and William Teeling, but I suspect the electorate has changed beyond recognition. Much the same would be true of Liverpool Walton which had been Tory -held until narrowly won by Eric Heffer in 1964.
It's just that it tends to be in parts of the country which the liberal media almost never visit and have almost forgotten about. I'm talking about the middle-class areas of counties like Lancashire, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Shopshire, etc.
Interestingly, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and Northumberland are difficult to reach by train. However, Staffordshire and Shropshire are easier although overshadowed by Birmingham. Which may actually be the point you're making; even in these days of internet we are physically divided by distance, with people simply never visiting the other bits.
[Parenthetically, Beeching has a lot to answer for]
How? The reports are they dont agree what they want and even if they did it wont get through the commons . It's too late to grab hold, either they replaced May long before now or they have to wait.
Slamming on the breaks when you're only 2 feet from smashing into a wall doesn't achieve anything
Well besides the fact we're 19 days from the wall, even if you hit the wall having hit the brakes first can make a difference. If you hit a wall at 40 mph, or if you realise you're going to hit the wall, slam your breaks and hit it at 10mph instead you are far more likely to escape injuries in the latter scenario.
Off topic but one of the most frightening moments of my life seems an apt analogy for where we are now. It was about 15 years ago when I was driving on the M1 at about 70 (probably 80) went over the top of the hill and saw in the distance the cars ahead were completetely stationary. Without warning, nobody was moving. Touched my brakes and they completely failed, there was zero resistance and my foot hit the floor. I had no brakes, was travelling at 80 and knew I was unlikely to stop in time despite having a while to the problem.
Without having much time to think instinct took over. I managed to get my hazard lights on and slowed down by repeatedly putting on and taking off the handbrake [never normally advised but its all I could think of]. As I approached the stationary traffic I realised I still wasn't going to stop in time and managed to time it right to swerve lanes and finally stopped the car somehow without getting into an accident in a different lane but ahead of the stationary cars I'd been behind.
The evasive procedures I took were unorthodox but facing a disaster and without working brakes had I not taken emergence evasive procedures its 100% guaranteed I would have smashed into the back of another vehicle and probably still at high speed which could have resulted in a fatality or other injury.
Moral of my story is that sometimes out of the box or unorthodox actions may be what it takes.
I think the idea that the logjam in parliament might not have occurred if May had involved them sooner is rather fanciful. Why has it occurred? Because of inflexible leaver ultras and die hard remainers. Theres no reason to suspect asking them things sooner would have led to more urgency from them.
And the casualty is TM who tried to reflect the 52/48 vote with the least worst exit
She didn't. She tried for a compromise among the 52% and ignored the 48%. She's now wasted 33 months. F*** her.
BTW this morning the petition for Revoke - not just a Ratifying Referendum - has got to 4.9 million whereas I heard on R4 yesterday that one urging a No Deal exit had got to 490,000.
It is not the answer and will not happen unless through a referendum
At the current rate the petition might have reached 5M by tomorrow morning or midday. That's like >10% of registered voters asking for Brexit to be 'recalled'. I don't see how even tin-eared Theresa can refuse Watson's offer yesterday in Parliament Square to approve the deal subject to a ratifying referendum.
TM is subject to the HOC and it will be upto the HOC
However, I do agree that neither the conservative or labour parties will support revoke without a referendum, no matter how many sign the revoke petition. The biggest roadblock for your course of action now is Corbyn, and many on his front bench, who do not support a referendum, hence why he was hiding in Morecambe yesterday and making a fool of himself with a large dog
Yes, the opposition is as split as the government although it's probably split 80/20% to revoke or approve with referendum instead of 60/40%, were they ever to hold the indicative vote by secret ballot. I think PC/SNP/LD/Green would be 99% for revoking it without a further public vote; they're all more internationalist.
Corbyn is out of touch even with the Labour left. Dianne Abbott, Clive Lewis and Ken Livingstone all support continued EU membership.
Yesterday at the march someone told me and friends that David Miliband is on manooeuvres and working closely with Tom Watson's 'SDP within a party'. Without PR, these party realignments will be a waste of time. I hope they remember Blair's abandonment of the Jenkins report and promise not to repeat the error.
W.R.T. professional voters, the big shift came under Thatcher/Major. That's when seats like Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle Central, Streatham, Leeds NE and NW, Edinburgh C and S, Birmingham Edgbaston, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol W etc. all swung away from the Conservatives, and never came back. 40 years ago, many of the people on yesterday's March would have been Conservatives. Now, I doubt if even 5% would be.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
To what extent are the changes in those seats due to a mixture of boundary changes and significant underlying demographic changes? Brighton Pavilion was a safe Tory seat when represented by Julian Amery and William Teeling, but I suspect the electorate has changed beyond recognition. Much the same would be true of Liverpool Walton which had been Tory -held until narrowly won by Eric Heffer in 1964.
I'd say it's more down to attitudinal change than demographic change. All the seats I mentioned remain pretty well off.
.....it'd be nuts to have, sat, Grieve, standing as a Tory candidate if the Tory manifesto was to implement no deal.
Or Grieve standing as a Tory candidate on a manifesto to implement Brexit, when all along his intention was to block it by any means possible.
You could say the same thing for maybe 10 of his colleagues, and over 100 Labour.
Parties stand on manifestos, candidates don't.
But, for all the fiction of the British constitution, people (with some few exceptions) tend to vote by party, not candidate, and hence by proxy for the manifesto
On topic I agree that May is a populist, albeit an unpopular populist which seems an oxymoron. However most of the points raised point to narcissm more than populism.
However I strongly disagree that she's the first populist PM. Almost all the points made could have been made about Tony Blair, the difference between the two being the size of the majorities they both had to deal with. And of course May hubristically expected to be gifted a Blair style majority without having to compete for it or put in the effort of getting a popular manifesto for it.
Populism has got a bad name but it isn't itself inherently bad. Its a fundamental of liberal democracy and underlying it is the basic idea of 'we rule them they don't rule us'.
Those who decry it full stop are ignorant and dismissive because they are effectively saying that the masses are all thick as two short planks. They aren't, in fact they have a habit of tearing through the bullshit.
Like any political philosophy its all about how its seen to carried through in practice. I consider myself a British nationalist, a combination of words that will automatically conjure up an image but I am wedded to liberal democratic principles. I just happen to believe that the UK should keep its own interests uppermost and that the generally accepted nation state is about the largest vehicle that can truly maintain liberal democracy through a direct line between people and politicians chosen to manage the country. It neither suggests exceptionalism nor excludes co operation with other nations.
Yet, like populism, its decried as being somehow inherently bad.
And you wonder why many of the masses who, lest we forget, have a vote, get pissed off.
Populism has got a bad name but it isn't itself inherently bad. Its a fundamental of liberal democracy and underlying it is the basic idea of 'we rule them they don't rule us'.
Those who decry it full stop are ignorant and dismissive because they are effectively saying that the masses are all thick as two short planks. They aren't, in fact they have a habit of tearing through the bullshit.
Like any political philosophy its all about how its seen to carried through in practice. I consider myself a British nationalist, a combination of words that will automatically conjure up an image but I am wedded to liberal democratic principles. I just happen to believe that the UK should keep its own interests uppermost and that the generally accepted nation state is about the largest vehicle that can truly maintain liberal democracy through a direct line between people and politicians chosen to manage the country. It neither suggests exceptionalism nor excludes co operation with other nations.
Yet, like populism, its decried as being somehow inherently bad.
And you wonder why many of the masses who, lest we forget, have a vote, get pissed off.
Populism has got a bad name but it isn't itself inherently bad. Its a fundamental of liberal democracy and underlying it is the basic idea of 'we rule them they don't rule us'.
Those who decry it full stop are ignorant and dismissive because they are effectively saying that the masses are all thick as two short planks. They aren't, in fact they have a habit of tearing through the bullshit.
Like any political philosophy its all about how its seen to carried through in practice. I consider myself a British nationalist, a combination of words that will automatically conjure up an image but I am wedded to liberal democratic principles. I just happen to believe that the UK should keep its own interests uppermost and that the generally accepted nation state is about the largest vehicle that can truly maintain liberal democracy through a direct line between people and politicians chosen to manage the country. It neither suggests exceptionalism nor excludes co operation with other nations.
Yet, like populism, its decried as being somehow inherently bad.
And you wonder why many of the masses who, lest we forget, have a vote, get pissed off.
I agree entirely with this. It reflects just my thinking as well.
Currently my view is tending towards the idea that 'populism' is a word used by people to describe any democratic decision they don't agree with as a means of undermining its legitimacy.
Populism has got a bad name but it isn't itself inherently bad. Its a fundamental of liberal democracy and underlying it is the basic idea of 'we rule them they don't rule us'.
Those who decry it full stop are ignorant and dismissive because they are effectively saying that the masses are all thick as two short planks. They aren't, in fact they have a habit of tearing through the bullshit.
Like any political philosophy its all about how its seen to carried through in practice. I consider myself a British nationalist, a combination of words that will automatically conjure up an image but I am wedded to liberal democratic principles. I just happen to believe that the UK should keep its own interests uppermost and that the generally accepted nation state is about the largest vehicle that can truly maintain liberal democracy through a direct line between people and politicians chosen to manage the country. It neither suggests exceptionalism nor excludes co operation with other nations.
Yet, like populism, its decried as being somehow inherently bad.
And you wonder why many of the masses who, lest we forget, have a vote, get pissed off.
By this definition, Maggie was a nationalist. Her first message to the FCO was "You are there to represent Britain to the world, not the world to Britain."
W.R.T. professional voters, the big shift came under Thatcher/Major. That's when seats like Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle Central, Streatham, Leeds NE and NW, Edinburgh C and S, Birmingham Edgbaston, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol W etc. all swung away from the Conservatives, and never came back. 40 years ago, many of the people on yesterday's March would have been Conservatives. Now, I doubt if even 5% would be.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
I remember seeing some data about employment in Sheffield - in the 1970s there 10x as many steel jobs as university jobs now the numbers have pretty much reversed.
Some interesting things in this about how employment has changed in various towns and cities during the last century:
It's just that it tends to be in parts of the country which the liberal media almost never visit and have almost forgotten about. I'm talking about the middle-class areas of counties like Lancashire, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Shopshire, etc.
Interestingly, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and Northumberland are difficult to reach by train. However, Staffordshire and Shropshire are easier although overshadowed by Birmingham. Which may actually be the point you're making; even in these days of internet we are physically divided by distance, with people simply never visiting the other bits.
[Parenthetically, Beeching has a lot to answer for]
Both Lincolnshire and Northumberland have the main East Coast line running through them along with various branch lines. They are no more difficult to reach by train than most other counties.
I think we're almost certainly heading towards a US situation with our political parties here in the UK, with social attitudes being the main divider rather than economics. So I'd expect Labour to win Chipping Barnet at the next election, and the Tories Bishop Auckland.
ho ho
Great because that is really working out well for the American working class.
It's probably coincidence, but blue collar wages have risen strongly under Trump.
Not that strongly, although better than the recent past. And yes, mostly coincidence, because it reflects a tight labour market which Trump inherited (although in fairness it has got tighter under his presidency, partly thanks to his remarkable fiscal loosening).
On topic I agree that May is a populist, albeit an unpopular populist which seems an oxymoron. However most of the points raised point to narcissm more than populism.
However I strongly disagree that she's the first populist PM. Almost all the points made could have been made about Tony Blair, the difference between the two being the size of the majorities they both had to deal with. And of course May hubristically expected to be gifted a Blair style majority without having to compete for it or put in the effort of getting a popular manifesto for it.
May's popularity levels are rather higher than for the Conservative party, most named Conservatives and way higher than politicians as a whole.
May's problem is not lack of popularity but her lack of political skills.
On topic I agree that May is a populist, albeit an unpopular populist which seems an oxymoron. However most of the points raised point to narcissm more than populism.
However I strongly disagree that she's the first populist PM. Almost all the points made could have been made about Tony Blair, the difference between the two being the size of the majorities they both had to deal with. And of course May hubristically expected to be gifted a Blair style majority without having to compete for it or put in the effort of getting a popular manifesto for it.
May's popularity levels are rather higher than for the Conservative party, most named Conservatives and way higher than politicians as a whole.
May's problem is not lack of popularity but her lack of political skills.
Hasn't that popularity point been true for every Conservative leader for a long time?
Who was the last Conservative leader less popular than the party? I'm guessing maybe IDS but maybe not even him.
Comments
How many confident predictions that "Benn-Cooper will pass"?
Green is a supporter of the deal.
Of course when you get them in combination and take that to its logical conclusion, you end up with Hitler and Pol Pot. But extreme intolerance can be vicious even from people with boringly unexceptional opinions.
I'd also 3-line whip the WA and remove the whip from any non voting MPs - get rid of the lot, on both sides.
Someone once sawed him off at the ankle, it was a few years ago. I think they have a spare Eric in case he gets nicked for scrap metal.
An interesting document from 1979:
"BRITAIN'S DECLINE; ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES" (MARCH 1979)
Sir Nicholas Henderson
UK ambassador to France"
https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf
1) Economically right wing and socially liberal - Blairites, Cameroons etc
2) Economically right wing and socially conservative - Shire Tories
3) Economically left wing and socially liberal - Guardian readers
4) Economically left wing and socially conservative - Traditional working class
Historically groups 1 and 2 voted Tory, while groups 3 and 4 voted Labour.
In the referendum, we saw a different split with groups 1 and 3 voting remain, while groups 2 and 4 voted leave.
The question is whether Brexit is a short term aberration or whether we see a wholesale realignment like they have in the US into a culturally conservative party vs. a culturally liberal one.
Despite his faults, I think Corbyn is helping to prevent a realignment as he recognises the need to keep group 4 on board.
https://twitter.com/prof_dfrench/status/1109791657032122368?s=21
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1109777654910197760
Of course, if the ERG VONC the government they are automatically barred from standing as Conservative MPs.
As ever, I fear they have not thought this through....
The only thing that would override this arrangement would be a new Govt. with a different manifesto mandate following an election. So Labour, would you really want to push for a General Election that might give you greater power over Brexit - but might also take it away from you?
Though that applies to all groups both economically and socially to varying degrees.
Working class voters in areas that were hard-hit in the 1980's have proved much more forgiving to the Tories. Almost every ex--mining seat has shifted right.
Where the Conservatives do have a very strong professional vote still is in the Shires, small cities, and big towns. Where it has fallen away is in centres of government and university cities.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/435356-biden-abrams-ticket-gets-strong-reviews-from-dems
GE this year is nailed on.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1109110453073047553
*Other than Labour supporters...
This is also in part what drove some of the anti-EU sentiment - the idea that whatever it might be doing whether good or bad, there is something fundamentally wrong with remote, unaccountable governance. This is a view that will only strengthen if the politicians decide to abandon Brexit.
And Green has said he supports Brexit 'as a democrat'.
Why would she tie her political future to a campaign which currently had around a one in four chance of gaining the nomination ? She’d be better served by a Senate run, or waiting until the nominee is settled.
And if Biden were to get the nomination, there would be plenty of scenarios in which (for instance) Harris might make more sense.
Floating the possibility makes a great deal of sense, though.
Or Grieve standing as a Tory candidate on a manifesto to implement Brexit, when all along his intention was to block it by any means possible.
You could say the same thing for maybe 10 of his colleagues, and over 100 Labour.
[Parenthetically, Beeching has a lot to answer for]
Off topic but one of the most frightening moments of my life seems an apt analogy for where we are now. It was about 15 years ago when I was driving on the M1 at about 70 (probably 80) went over the top of the hill and saw in the distance the cars ahead were completetely stationary. Without warning, nobody was moving. Touched my brakes and they completely failed, there was zero resistance and my foot hit the floor. I had no brakes, was travelling at 80 and knew I was unlikely to stop in time despite having a while to the problem.
Without having much time to think instinct took over. I managed to get my hazard lights on and slowed down by repeatedly putting on and taking off the handbrake [never normally advised but its all I could think of]. As I approached the stationary traffic I realised I still wasn't going to stop in time and managed to time it right to swerve lanes and finally stopped the car somehow without getting into an accident in a different lane but ahead of the stationary cars I'd been behind.
The evasive procedures I took were unorthodox but facing a disaster and without working brakes had I not taken emergence evasive procedures its 100% guaranteed I would have smashed into the back of another vehicle and probably still at high speed which could have resulted in a fatality or other injury.
Moral of my story is that sometimes out of the box or unorthodox actions may be what it takes.
Corbyn is out of touch even with the Labour left. Dianne Abbott, Clive Lewis and Ken Livingstone all support continued EU membership.
Yesterday at the march someone told me and friends that David Miliband is on manooeuvres and working closely with Tom Watson's 'SDP within a party'. Without PR, these party realignments will be a waste of time. I hope they remember Blair's abandonment of the Jenkins report and promise not to repeat the error.
However I strongly disagree that she's the first populist PM. Almost all the points made could have been made about Tony Blair, the difference between the two being the size of the majorities they both had to deal with. And of course May hubristically expected to be gifted a Blair style majority without having to compete for it or put in the effort of getting a popular manifesto for it.
Those who decry it full stop are ignorant and dismissive because they are effectively saying that the masses are all thick as two short planks. They aren't, in fact they have a habit of tearing through the bullshit.
Like any political philosophy its all about how its seen to carried through in practice. I consider myself a British nationalist, a combination of words that will automatically conjure up an image but I am wedded to liberal democratic principles. I just happen to believe that the UK should keep its own interests uppermost and that the generally accepted nation state is about the largest vehicle that can truly maintain liberal democracy through a direct line between people and politicians chosen to manage the country. It neither suggests exceptionalism nor excludes co operation with other nations.
Yet, like populism, its decried as being somehow inherently bad.
And you wonder why many of the masses who, lest we forget, have a vote, get pissed off.
Currently my view is tending towards the idea that 'populism' is a word used by people to describe any democratic decision they don't agree with as a means of undermining its legitimacy.
Some interesting things in this about how employment has changed in various towns and cities during the last century:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45952532
Also that proposal is nothing like what happened in the coupon election. It sounds a lot more like the Trotskyite idea of democratic centralism.
May's problem is not lack of popularity but her lack of political skills.
https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1109804356717740033
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1109778296231903232
Who was the last Conservative leader less popular than the party? I'm guessing maybe IDS but maybe not even him.