politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The looming fork in the road and the path many MPs will have to make
You need to watch politics in split-screen at the moment. In both Labour and the Conservatives, a group of politicians has come to a fork in the road. In both cases, there is no shortage of fellow party supporters telling them to fork off.
Fantastic picture. The second law of thermodynamics (tendency towards disorder) seems to be winning. I'm off to do a laundry. Do your essay justice later.
F1: well, qualifying was frustrating. Given the result, I think there was a 70% chance, roughly, of my bet having been green (probably minor rather than major) had the Fates not decided to urinate in the teacup of tipping.
Great header. I would say that the situation in both main parties is actually worse than you say. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem every bit as bad as Labour's anti semitism situation - it just receives less media attention. And Labour is also increasingly split over Brexit and has a leader apparently set on a ruinous path on the issue. Also, both parties seem increasingly in thrall to nasty, narrow sects out of tune with the moderate mass of the country. But first past the Post keeps both parties limping on. Much as I despair of Labour, I will gladly vote for them to stave off what I regard as a far worse alternative, and doubtless many despairing Tories will do the same for their sorry party. Sad!
"Fork in the road" time @AlastairMeeks ? .... more stick a fork in it for a raft of MP's and both the Labour and Conservative parties if their present perilous situation persists to an election in the coming months.
F1: weird. Hamilton's listed now as starting 4th rather than 5th. Given he qualified 2nd and received a 3 place penalty I'm not sure why that is.
Ah. F1 is being dickish again. Magnussen qualified 5th, and apparently that's the reason (the Dane also has a penalty). So Hamilton qualified 2nd, received a 3 place grid penalty, and will start 4th. That's some bullshit.
F1: weird. Hamilton's listed now as starting 4th rather than 5th. Given he qualified 2nd and received a 3 place penalty I'm not sure why that is.
Ah. F1 is being dickish again. Magnussen qualified 5th, and apparently that's the reason (the Dane also has a penalty). So Hamilton qualified 2nd, received a 3 place grid penalty, and will start 4th. That's some bullshit.
Language @Morris_Dancer so early in the morning and on the sabbath.
Populist politicians (of the right or the left) did not create the abandoned regions where poverty is rife and people have no future.
Farage & Corbyn took advantage of this phenomenon, but they did not make it.
That is the triumph of middle-of-the-road politicians (of the right or the left). Obviously, if the middle-of-the-roaders had been so successful, then the Labour and Tory Parties could never have been take over by the extremes !!
As long as the Blairites and Cameroonies refuse to acknowledge their responsibility, then the disaffected are not coming back. The people who suffered at their hands are not going to be satisfied by a return to the status quo.
That is why most laughed at the ridiculous TIGgers, even while pb.com held its collective breath in awe.
Putin may or may not have been right to say Liberalism is dead. But, Liberalism has had no empathy for its victims. That is why we are where we are.
In the Labour situation, the vast majority of MPs and members are very unhappy with the Anti-Semitism problem, which is there but only in pockets. If they decide to leave over this issue then they would be leaving the party to let it be controlled over by those with racist views. "Better to change things from within."
The Conservative and Unionist Party has gone well past this point and Tory Remainers must be thinking what the point of staying in the party is when the centre of their party has drifted so far away.
This is an excellent piece. However, it could just be that things are very, very slowly beginning to shift inside the Labour party. I do not believe the majority of Labour members or MPs are anti-Semites. They have, though, to their utter and complete shame, accommodated those who are. But my sense is that the Williamson abomination and the Brexit fiasco have woken up a lot of people. For the first time, it’s possible to imagine Labour not being led by Corbyn. And if he goes, so too do a lot of those around him (the SWP brigade) - even if he is replaced by another far-left leader (which I doubt, unless McDonnell stands). With their èxit, the instinctive anti-Westernism - which is Corbyn Labour’s real electoral problem - goes too.
Overall, we have passed peak-Corbyn and peak-Momentum. In a few years they will be a huge stain on Labour’s history, but nothing more. Labour will remain further to the left than it was under Blair and Brown, but it will be a softer, more mainstream left.
Given all that, I expect the vast majority of undoubtedly morally compromised Labour MPs to stay - and for the Tories to win most seats, but not a majority, at the next GE if Johnson calls a snap poll.
It looks different for the Tories. The party has clearly turned right and become a lot more English nationalist. That’s been a bottom-up process, not a top down one, so is much less about who the leader is. When No Deal exposes all of the Brexiteer claims about Global Britain for the delusions they are, will the current membership accept that and tack back to the pragmàtic centre? I am not so sure.
F1: Hamilton's 4.5 for the win. Trying to work out if that's surprising value, or the name driving down the price when the value is elsewhere (Leclerc and Verstappen both looked good in qualifying).
In the Labour situation, the vast majority of MPs and members are very unhappy with the Anti-Semitism problem, which is there but only in pockets. If they decide to leave over this issue then they would be leaving the party to let it be controlled over by those with racist views. "Better to change things from within."
The Conservative and Unionist Party has gone well past this point and Tory Remainers must be thinking what the point of staying in the party is when the centre of their party has drifted so far away.
This isn't quite right about Labour. The first problem is that one of the 'pockets' is the leadership and swathes of those installed on ruling bodies. The second is that although large number of Labour members are upset about episodes like the Williamson one, they're in denial both the nature and scale of the problem, which is now a deep cultural one that mirrors that of organisations like Stop the War when Corbyn and his pals were running them. This is that there's a sanitation problem that sees left-wing antisemitism as, at best, an excusable fault providing you have the right politics. They want to cut down the weeds when they sprout up and ruin a flower bed but don't want to root it out properly by admitting that it's an inherent problem with the political tradition they've installed as the dominant one within the party.
"Fork in the road" time @AlastairMeeks ? .... more stick a fork in it for a raft of MP's and both the Labour and Conservative parties if their present perilous situation persists to an election in the coming months.
As was discussed briefly on the last thread, no party has an inherent right to exist. Your Grace's party was wound up in 1859, their successors in 1988. Other major parties around the world - the Federalists, the Communists, the Catholic Centre Party, all have come and gone for a variety of reasons.
The problem is that for parties to be displaced under our system they need to implode - as the official Liberals did in 1918 and 1924 - and have a replacement at hand to stop them rising again.
The risk for Labour is that while there is an obvious and plausible replacement for them - the Liberal Democrats - it's far from clear the same holds true for the Tories, as their main rivals are a single issue ego trip led by a third rate failure who looks like a frog and whose speeches are not much more intelligible than those of a frog.
But that is not to say Labour won't survive or the Tories will. If the last five years have taught us anything, it is that the rules of politics have been torn up.
One interesting thing on the Labour side is the effect the Lib Dems' revival has. If they continue to poll around and possibly above Labour, and cast themselves as a welcoming home for progressive left-wingers horrified at Corbyn, then they could well provide the life raft some MPs didn't see in TIG. Especially if they've got a constituency that's now under threat.
We're not at that point yet, but if the Lib Dems get a poll boost from Swinson, say, and Corbyn continues to refuse to change course on Brexit and internal matters, including antisemitism, dragging them down further, some may judge it's not just their consciences that will be saved by leaving.
This is an excellent piece. However, it could just be that things are very, very slowly beginning to shift inside the Labour party. I do not believe the majority of Labour members or MPs are anti-Semites. They have, though, to their utter and complete shame, accommodated those who are. But my sense is that the Williamson abomination and the Brexit fiasco have woken up a lot of people. For the first time, it’s possible to imagine Labour not being led by Corbyn. And if he goes, so too do a lot of those around him (the SWP brigade) - even if he is replaced by another far-left leader (which I doubt, unless McDonnell stands). With their èxit, the instinctive anti-Westernism - which is Corbyn Labour’s real electoral problem - goes too.
Overall, we have passed peak-Corbyn and peak-Momentum. In a few years they will be a huge stain on Labour’s history, but nothing more. Labour will remain further to the left than it was under Blair and Brown, but it will be a softer, more mainstream left.
Given all that, I expect the vast majority of undoubtedly morally compromised Labour MPs to stay - and for the Tories to win most seats, but not a majority, at the next GE if Johnson calls a snap poll.
It looks different for the Tories. The party has clearly turned right and become a lot more English nationalist. That’s been a bottom-up process, not a top down one, so is much less about who the leader is. When No Deal exposes all of the Brexiteer claims about Global Britain for the delusions they are, will the current membership accept that and tack back to the pragmàtic centre? I am not so sure.
And a good comment, Mr O. Suspect you are right about Labour; it ought to be Methodism AND Marx not Methodism OR Marx, s we appear to have at the moment. I've been listening to Ed Milliband's Reasons to be Cheerful podcasts and I strongly suspect he would have been a better PM than was suggested at the time. Just maybe it would be a good idea to let him have another go at Leader.
And I don't recognise the Tories as the party I once opposed. There was a sort of noblesse oblige about many of them once upon a time, but Thatcher encouraged into the party a lot of people who had a different world-view; 'pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm all right', and they seem to have taken over.
"Fork in the road" time @AlastairMeeks ? .... more stick a fork in it for a raft of MP's and both the Labour and Conservative parties if their present perilous situation persists to an election in the coming months.
As was discussed briefly on the last thread, no party has an inherent right to exist. Your Grace's party was wound up in 1859, their successors in 1988. Other major parties around the world - the Federalists, the Communists, the Catholic Centre Party, all have come and gone for a variety of reasons.
The problem is that for parties to be displaced under our system they need to implode - as the official Liberals did in 1918 and 1924 - and have a replacement at hand to stop them rising again.
The risk for Labour is that while there is an obvious and plausible replacement for them - the Liberal Democrats - it's far from clear the same holds true for the Tories, as their main rivals are a single issue ego trip led by a third rate failure who looks like a frog and whose speeches are not much more intelligible than those of a frog.
But that is not to say Labour won't survive or the Tories will. If the last five years have taught us anything, it is that the rules of politics have been torn up.
Indeed so young man.
The present political climate is so fluid that there are a vast range of political scenarios that has OGH in paroxysm of delight at the thread possibilities.
We only need to look at the short history of TIG and CHUK to note the phenomenon. At one moment they attract a group of notable MP's and poll double digits and in the blink of a political eye they are flushed down the gurgler in very short order.
With apologies for posting this again, it is very much on topic. A young and clearly enthusiastic and committed party supporter goes to a Conservative meeting where every other person in attendance was apparently over retirement age and a no-deal fanatic, and give her a hard time. So she pens a plea for more tolerance and for moderate conservatism to be respected; the comments she gets from ConHome readers are, with a few exceptions, mostly hostile and often offensive (for example saying it is time for all “liberal parasites” to leave the party).
She tries to hold up the mirror of Corbynism to her party and her colleagues either can’t see it or don’t mind. Very sad.
F1: pre-race ramble will be up in a bit, but the two tips I'll include are: Hulkenberg to beat Perez (2.75 on Ladbrokes) Verstappen to win (7.8 Betfair, hedged at 3)
The Racing Point is now the second slowest car. Perez's points have come from early in the season, whereas most of Hulkenberg's are recent, and the reason he has a penalty is due to an engine upgrade.
Verstappen's been very competitive in qualifying and the Red Bull will be relatively faster in the race (which he won last year, starting from 4th).
One interesting thing on the Labour side is the effect the Lib Dems' revival has. If they continue to poll around and possibly above Labour, and cast themselves as a welcoming home for progressive left-wingers horrified at Corbyn, then they could well provide the life raft some MPs didn't see in TIG. Especially if they've got a constituency that's now under threat.
We're not at that point yet, but if the Lib Dems get a poll boost from Swinson, say, and Corbyn continues to refuse to change course on Brexit and internal matters, including antisemitism, dragging them down further, some may judge it's not just their consciences that will be saved by leaving.
Time is running out for them to jump to the Lib Dems, the longer they leave it the more intransigent the local party will be at accepting them as the candidate.
Just out of interest I assume John "a man who betrays his wife can betray his country" Redwood is backing Johnson? Just not clear whether it's because he now sees betraying the country as a good thing, or because betraying a second wife cancels out the first.
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
Yes, as one who watched the Militant furore in Labour from outside, I would say your description of the time is correct.
Noblesse Oblige was always the hallmark of the Conservative Party, and it suggested they meant well, even if some of their solutions were iffy. Mr T brought in the more 'do this or else' solutions.
Labour used to exude a caring patriotism, and the Liberals/LDs gave out a peacenik, Panglossian aura.
We now have a the LDs in a more militant 'we know best' mood, epitomised by the refusal to accept compromise or the will of the people.
Labour, a captive of the hard left, will force people to accept whatever is deemed the party line. A strain of anti-Americanism, pro Hamas foreign policy, a strong level of control to force people to conform, and punishment for all class-enemies.
The once amiable Tories have gone into a 'we aint taking this is any more' attitude.
This sort of hardening is personified by t-shirts proclaiming 'I've never kissed a Tory, Trot, or Pinko'. That used to be a trait of teenagers like the Kevin portrayed by Harry Enfield, or Wolfie Smith (one for the oldies). They were always an object of ridicule. Not now.
Politics isn't real life anymore. It's not a matter of rubbing along. Hence the plethora of loons with "Activist' as their job-title.
One interesting thing on the Labour side is the effect the Lib Dems' revival has. If they continue to poll around and possibly above Labour, and cast themselves as a welcoming home for progressive left-wingers horrified at Corbyn, then they could well provide the life raft some MPs didn't see in TIG. Especially if they've got a constituency that's now under threat.
We're not at that point yet, but if the Lib Dems get a poll boost from Swinson, say, and Corbyn continues to refuse to change course on Brexit and internal matters, including antisemitism, dragging them down further, some may judge it's not just their consciences that will be saved by leaving.
Time is running out for them to jump to the Lib Dems, the longer they leave it the more intransigent the local party will be at accepting them as the candidate.
I think a good Brecon & Radnor showing by the LDs could be another jump off moment if Corbyn remains intransigent. I am slowly beginning to see a [small]possibility that even his own supporters could ditch Corbyn and his inner coterie.
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
The tenuousness of the far-left’s control over Labour is demonstrated by Corbyn’s continued leadership, despite his huge and very obvious limitations. If the far-left could offer a viable replacement he’d be gone tomorrow. But it can’t. So he has to stay.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
Noblesse Oblige was always the hallmark of the Conservative Party, and it suggested they meant well, even if some of their solutions were iffy. Mr T brought in the more 'do this or else' solutions.
Labour used to exude a caring patriotism, and the Liberals/LDs gave out a peacenik, Panglossian aura.
We now have a the LDs in a more militant 'we know best' mood, epitomised by the refusal to accept compromise or the will of the people.
Labour, a captive of the hard left, will force people to accept whatever is deemed the party line. A strain of anti-Americanism, pro Hamas foreign policy, a strong level of control to force people to conform, and punishment for all class-enemies.
The once amiable Tories have gone into a 'we aint taking this is any more' attitude.
This sort of hardening is personified by t-shirts proclaiming 'I've never kissed a Tory, Trot, or Pinko'. That used to be a trait of teenagers like the Kevin portrayed by Harry Enfield, or Wolfie Smith (one for the oldies). They were always an object of ridicule. Not now.
Politics isn't real life anymore. It's not a matter of rubbing along. Hence the plethora of loons with "Activist' as their job-title.
Yes; agree, although I'm not certain Mr T had much, if anything to do with it! (typos' doncha love 'em!)
I don't recall, although it's a VERY long time ago now, ever being worried about girl-friend's politics, at least in the initial, 'getting physically acquainted' stages. Although I was never involved with the middle class marriage bureau for my youth, the Young Conservatives.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
Interesting points and you certainly have something in sensing a counter-reaction to the centralisation of power and investment in London and around. May realised this but was ineffectual in doing anything about it, as you say.
For the Tories, who have always tried to look after "our people", their focus is following the shift of their powerbase; what remains of Tory support in London is quickly melting away, and there are early signs that the Home Counties may be experiencing the breaking of Tory hegemony.
But there is nothing inherent in Brexit that is going to address these underlying concerns; indeed most economic projections suggest London & SE would be more resilient to the economic shock. The tragedy for our nation is that Brexit is an immense red herring to the real issues of inequality between the regions.
Meanwhile Boris actually believes in Brexit and will get on with delivering it and the FTA for GB most voters want
The two parts of your sentence are not connected, unless you genuinely believe 'actually believes in Brexit' has anything at all to being able to deliver it, and you don't come across as silly enough to seriously think that wanting something makes it easier to happen.
If you have no belief in it of course you have no real chance of delivering Brexit
You voted Remain in 2016.
I also respect democracy
And yet by the logic you apply to May you dont really believe in Brexit because you voted remain, even though you say you believe in it now, therefore you dont really understand Brexit.
Unfair? It's how you treat politicians who voted remain who are trying to deliver Brexit.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
The tenuousness of the far-left’s control over Labour is demonstrated by Corbyn’s continued leadership, despite his huge and very obvious limitations. If the far-left could offer a viable replacement he’d be gone tomorrow. But it can’t. So he has to stay.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
I hope you are right. I fear you are not.
Let’s say the election isn’t until 2022. You could easily have 5 more years of Corbyn in leadership. How many of the aspiring successors won’t cone the same tradition by then?
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
The tenuousness of the far-left’s control over Labour is demonstrated by Corbyn’s continued leadership, despite his huge and very obvious limitations. If the far-left could offer a viable replacement he’d be gone tomorrow. But it can’t. So he has to stay.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
I hope you are right. I fear you are not.
Let’s say the election isn’t until 2022. You could easily have 5 more years of Corbyn in leadership. How many of the aspiring successors won’t cone the same tradition by then?
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
The tenuousness of the far-left’s control over Labour is demonstrated by Corbyn’s continued leadership, despite his huge and very obvious limitations. If the far-left could offer a viable replacement he’d be gone tomorrow. But it can’t. So he has to stay.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
I hope you are right. I fear you are not.
Let’s say the election isn’t until 2022. You could easily have 5 more years of Corbyn in leadership. How many of the aspiring successors won’t cone the same tradition by then?
Corbyn will not fight an election in 2022 as Labour leader.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
Noblesse Oblige was always the hallmark of the Conservative Party, and it suggested they meant well, even if some of their solutions were iffy. Mr T brought in the more 'do this or else' solutions.
Labour used to exude a caring patriotism, and the Liberals/LDs gave out a peacenik, Panglossian aura.
We now have a the LDs in a more militant 'we know best' mood, epitomised by the refusal to accept compromise or the will of the people.
Labour, a captive of the hard left, will force people to accept whatever is deemed the party line. A strain of anti-Americanism, pro Hamas foreign policy, a strong level of control to force people to conform, and punishment for all class-enemies.
The once amiable Tories have gone into a 'we aint taking this is any more' attitude.
This sort of hardening is personified by t-shirts proclaiming 'I've never kissed a Tory, Trot, or Pinko'. That used to be a trait of teenagers like the Kevin portrayed by Harry Enfield, or Wolfie Smith (one for the oldies). They were always an object of ridicule. Not now.
Politics isn't real life anymore. It's not a matter of rubbing along. Hence the plethora of loons with "Activist' as their job-title.
Yes; agree, although I'm not certain Mr T had much, if anything to do with it! (typos' doncha love 'em!)
I don't recall, although it's a VERY long time ago now, ever being worried about girl-friend's politics, at least in the initial, 'getting physically acquainted' stages. Although I was never involved with the middle class marriage bureau for my youth, the Young Conservatives.
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
The tenuousness of the far-left’s control over Labour is demonstrated by Corbyn’s continued leadership, despite his huge and very obvious limitations. If the far-left could offer a viable replacement he’d be gone tomorrow. But it can’t. So he has to stay.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
I hope you are right. I fear you are not.
Let’s say the election isn’t until 2022. You could easily have 5 more years of Corbyn in leadership. How many of the aspiring successors won’t cone the same tradition by then?
It’s an interesting article, but I think you are conflating two different things. They may have similar symptoms but are really quite different.
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
The tenuousness of the far-left’s control over Labour is demonstrated by Corbyn’s continued leadership, despite his huge and very obvious limitations. If the far-left could offer a viable replacement he’d be gone tomorrow. But it can’t. So he has to stay.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
I hope you are right. I fear you are not.
Let’s say the election isn’t until 2022. You could easily have 5 more years of Corbyn in leadership. How many of the aspiring successors won’t cone the same tradition by then?
Corbyn will not fight an election in 2022 as Labour leader.
Of course not, hed only be half way through his first term as PM.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
Meanwhile Boris actually believes in Brexit and will get on with delivering it and the FTA for GB most voters want
The two parts of your sentence are not connected, unless you genuinely believe 'actually believes in Brexit' has anything at all to being able to deliver it, and you don't come across as silly enough to seriously think that wanting something makes it easier to happen.
If you have no belief in it of course you have no real chance of delivering Brexit
You voted Remain in 2016.
I also respect democracy
And yet by the logic you apply to May you dont really believe in Brexit because you voted remain, even though you say you believe in it now, therefore you dont really understand Brexit.
Unfair? It's how you treat politicians who voted remain who are trying to deliver Brexit.
He even yesterday was saying that he's a strong supporter of the withdrawal agreement, whilst simultaneously throwing out jibes at the Civil servant who negotiated it ("Oily Robbins" etc). And seems to think that Johnson can win an election opposing the withdrawal agreement ("new deal or no deal" - without explaining what that 'new deal' will involve) and expect a large enough majority to be able to ignore any dissenters from his magically negotiated no deal to get it to pass.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living throughtheir finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
Johnson’s tax proposals are just cat nip.
They are strongly indicative of a direction of travel and very London-centric. They’re a gift to the Tories’ opponents.
While words are easy and actual achievements are hard, can you imagine if one day Trump was awarded the Nobel peace prize, and deserved it? So many people would go crazy if that happened.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
It's also why Farage doesnt need to worry about defections or entryest plots into the tories - there were always a group in the Tories who did what he wanted, now it is most of the membership. He gets to control that membership and thus its mps without the hassle of doing so officially.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
It's also why Farage doesnt need to worry about defections or entryest plots into the tories - there were always a group in the Tories who did what he wanted, now it is most of the membership. He gets to control that membership and thus its mps without the hassle of doing so officially.
Exactly. Farage controls the Tories’ direction of travel. Johnson will govern with his permission.
I think what we are living throughtheir finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
Johnson’s tax proposals are just cat nip.
They are strongly indicative of a direction of travel and very London-centric. They’re a gift to the Tories’ opponents.
He’s already pivoted from moving the higher rate threshold (which has a much broader appeal than your pejorative “rich”) to taking more people out of income tax.
All it is indicative of is that the Tories DNA is towards limiting the government’s reach into citizens’ pockets to what is necessary
(And if the Labour Party want to make the next election about Tory tax cuts be my guest)
While words are easy and actual achievements are hard, can you imagine if one day Trump was awarded the Nobel peace prize, and deserved it? So many people would go crazy if that happened.
Kissinger & Le Duc, the EU, Begin & Arafat, Aung San Suu Kyi, Obama (while he was waging war) ....
I think what we are living throughtheir finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
Johnson’s tax proposals are just cat nip.
They are strongly indicative of a direction of travel and very London-centric. They’re a gift to the Tories’ opponents.
He’s already pivoted from moving the higher rate threshold (which has a much broader appeal than your pejorative “rich”) to taking more people out of income tax.
All it is indicative of is that the Tories DNA is towards limiting the government’s reach into citizens’ pockets to what is necessary
(And if the Labour Party want to make the next election about Tory tax cuts be my guest)
“What is necessary” is the key point here. What the wealthy, London-based Tory leadership believes is necessary may not reflect the needs of small town England.
While words are easy and actual achievements are hard, can you imagine if one day Trump was awarded the Nobel peace prize, and deserved it? So many people would go crazy if that happened.
Kissinger & Le Duc, the EU, Begin & Arafat, Aung San Suu Kyi, Obama (while he was waging war) ....
Trump is good addition to the list of deplorable.
To be sure, but in the short term people act like winning it affords someone a halo and reconciling that with Trump would be hard.
And really given Obama's was nominated barely into his presidency before he even had an opportunity to earn it, Itd be amusing to see if Trump, arsehole that he is, actually had a concrete achievement.
To deliver Brexit given the current hung parliament clearly has no intention of passing either the Withdrawal Agreement (which I noted Alistair fails to mention Boris voted for at MV3, he is not Steve Baker) or allowing Brexit with No Deal very likely requires a Tory majority in a general election before October. That is very likely to be on the cards since it is hard to see the likes of diehard Remainers such as Grieve and Lee and Greening and Gyimah not joining the opposition and backing a VONC in a PM Boris who is prepared to leave No Deal on the table.
As for diehard Remainers who can no longer stomach a Boris led Tory Party or Blairites in Labour who can no longer stomach Corbynism there is always the LDs, as Michael Heseltine and Chuka Umunna have already discovered
To deliver Brexit given the current hung parliament clearly has no intention of passing either the Withdrawal Agreement (which I noted Alistair fails to mention Boris voted for at MV3, he is not Steve Baker) or allowing Brexit with No Deal very likely requires a Tory majority in a general election before October. That is very likely to be on the cards since it is hard to see the likes of diehard Remainers such as Grieve and Lee and Greening and Gyimah not joining the opposition and backing a VONC in a PM Boris who is prepared to leave No Deal on the table.
As for diehard Remainers who can no longer stomach a Boris led Tory Party or Blairites in Labour who can no longer stomach Corbynism there is always the LDs, as Michael Heseltine and Chuka Umunna have already discovered
As someone who does not really believe in Brexit under your own definitions, how can we trust your view?
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
I think what we are living throughtheir finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
Johnson’s tax proposals are just cat nip.
They are strongly indicative of a direction of travel and very London-centric. They’re a gift to the Tories’ opponents.
He’s already pivoted from moving the higher rate threshold (which has a much broader appeal than your pejorative “rich”) to taking more people out of income tax.
All it is indicative of is that the Tories DNA is towards limiting the government’s reach into citizens’ pockets to what is necessary
(And if the Labour Party want to make the next election about Tory tax cuts be my guest)
“What is necessary” is the key point here. What the wealthy, London-based Tory leadership believes is necessary may not reflect the needs of small town England.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
Yet most Tory members back gay marriage now according to a Tim Bale survey
To deliver Brexit given the current hung parliament clearly has no intention of passing either the Withdrawal Agreement (which I noted Alistair fails to mention Boris voted for at MV3, he is not Steve Baker) or allowing Brexit with No Deal very likely requires a Tory majority in a general election before October. That is very likely to be on the cards since it is hard to see the likes of diehard Remainers such as Grieve and Lee and Greening and Gyimah not joining the opposition and backing a VONC in a PM Boris who is prepared to leave No Deal on the table.
As for diehard Remainers who can no longer stomach a Boris led Tory Party or Blairites in Labour who can no longer stomach Corbynism there is always the LDs, as Michael Heseltine and Chuka Umunna have already discovered
I would be very surprised if Greening did. Sam is a fool, so it’s quite possible - but unlikely - he will.
I don’t know Lee or Grieve, but I think you believe positively voting against your own party in a Vonc is easier than it is
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Environmental protections, animal welfare, reproductive rights and getting Terry & June back on TV.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
Sounds about right. The Tories seem to be stumbling towards the Republican trick of creating a base to whose cultural prejudices they appeal, alongside policies to benefit the wealthy. Selecting an uncompromising Brexit as the means to achieve this seems a pretty high risk option.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But if our Celtic brothers and sisters want to go their own way then good luck to them.
Great header. I would say that the situation in both main parties is actually worse than you say. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem every bit as bad as Labour's anti semitism situation - it just receives less media attention. And Labour is also increasingly split over Brexit and has a leader apparently set on a ruinous path on the issue. Also, both parties seem increasingly in thrall to nasty, narrow sects out of tune with the moderate mass of the country. But first past the Post keeps both parties limping on. Much as I despair of Labour, I will gladly vote for them to stave off what I regard as a far worse alternative, and doubtless many despairing Tories will do the same for their sorry party. Sad!
FPTP is the key. It is propping up the 2 old parties by effectively forcing people to choose the lesser of 2 evils.
Unfortunately we are in a Catch-22 situation (enjoying the new TV adaptation by the way!). FPTP won't change until we elect a government that wants it changed. FPTP ensures we will never elect a government that wants it changed.
Boris all over the shop on Sophy Ridge on Sky News.
Will the last fiscal conservative in the Tory party climb down from Boris's magic money tree and then please turn the lights out as he shuts the doors of the House if Commons as he refuses to rule out proroguing parliament.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
F1: well, qualifying was frustrating. Given the result, I think there was a 70% chance, roughly, of my bet having been green (probably minor rather than major) had the Fates not decided to urinate in the teacup of tipping.
Anyway. I'll peruse the markets.
This is the first race in ages where several different drivers could win. Although obviously not Vettel. I think it’s between Leclerc and the Mercs, the silvers cars starting on a different strategy having qualified on the mediums. The high temperatures might mean those starting on the softs need two stops, or need to run a long stint on the slow hard tyres at a track where overtaking is easy. I might back a Mercedes 1-2 if the odds are 10 or more.
To deliver Brexit given the current hung parliament clearly has no intention of passing either the Withdrawal Agreement (which I noted Alistair fails to mention Boris voted for at MV3, he is not Steve Baker) or allowing Brexit with No Deal very likely requires a Tory majority in a general election before October. That is very likely to be on the cards since it is hard to see the likes of diehard Remainers such as Grieve and Lee and Greening and Gyimah not joining the opposition and backing a VONC in a PM Boris who is prepared to leave No Deal on the table.
As for diehard Remainers who can no longer stomach a Boris led Tory Party or Blairites in Labour who can no longer stomach Corbynism there is always the LDs, as Michael Heseltine and Chuka Umunna have already discovered
As someone who does not really believe in Brexit under your own definitions, how can we trust your view?
I respect democracy, I am not seeking to deliver Brexit but will back a Leaver now who will ie Boris
In the Labour situation, the vast majority of MPs and members are very unhappy with the Anti-Semitism problem, which is there but only in pockets. If they decide to leave over this issue then they would be leaving the party to let it be controlled over by those with racist views. "Better to change things from within."
The Conservative and Unionist Party has gone well past this point and Tory Remainers must be thinking what the point of staying in the party is when the centre of their party has drifted so far away.
In what sense are Labour people trying to change things from within? Other than expressing their concern they are doing nothing.
By staying they are fooling themselves and others that the problem is remediable with the current leadership and/or not so bad.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
Great header. I would say that the situation in both main parties is actually worse than you say. The Tories have an Islamophobia problem every bit as bad as Labour's anti semitism situation - it just receives less media attention. And Labour is also increasingly split over Brexit and has a leader apparently set on a ruinous path on the issue. Also, both parties seem increasingly in thrall to nasty, narrow sects out of tune with the moderate mass of the country. But first past the Post keeps both parties limping on. Much as I despair of Labour, I will gladly vote for them to stave off what I regard as a far worse alternative, and doubtless many despairing Tories will do the same for their sorry party. Sad!
And Boris has already backtracked on his promise to hold an inquiry into anti-Muslim prejudice.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But if our Celtic brothers and sisters want to go their own way then good luck to them.
Small town England wants to go its own way according to you. Reframing it betrays a certain condescension towards the rest of the UK.
To deliver Brexit given the current hung parliament clearly has no intention of passing either the Withdrawal Agreement (which I noted Alistair fails to mention Boris voted for at MV3, he is not Steve Baker) or allowing Brexit with No Deal very likely requires a Tory majority in a general election before October. That is very likely to be on the cards since it is hard to see the likes of diehard Remainers such as Grieve and Lee and Greening and Gyimah not joining the opposition and backing a VONC in a PM Boris who is prepared to leave No Deal on the table.
As for diehard Remainers who can no longer stomach a Boris led Tory Party or Blairites in Labour who can no longer stomach Corbynism there is always the LDs, as Michael Heseltine and Chuka Umunna have already discovered
If you won't pause for thought, could you at least pause for punctuation?
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible. The big Tory problem is that the English nationalism they’ve embraced appeals to a mostly older cross-section of small town England. However, the hard right economics the Tories are also embracing appeals to only a section of that coalition and is actually very London-cèntric in its focus. Who benefits from Johnson’s tax cuts for the rich, for example? They are mostly based in and around London. Who is harmed by the continuing declines in public spending they will entail, particularly in a No Deal scenario? People living in English towns. The alternative is higher borrowing - which gives Labour a free ticket.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
Comments
The second law of thermodynamics (tendency towards disorder) seems to be winning.
I'm off to do a laundry.
Do your essay justice later.
F1: well, qualifying was frustrating. Given the result, I think there was a 70% chance, roughly, of my bet having been green (probably minor rather than major) had the Fates not decided to urinate in the teacup of tipping.
Anyway. I'll peruse the markets.
But first past the Post keeps both parties limping on. Much as I despair of Labour, I will gladly vote for them to stave off what I regard as a far worse alternative, and doubtless many despairing Tories will do the same for their sorry party. Sad!
Ah. F1 is being dickish again. Magnussen qualified 5th, and apparently that's the reason (the Dane also has a penalty). So Hamilton qualified 2nd, received a 3 place grid penalty, and will start 4th. That's some bullshit.
You'll never see longer prices for two frontrunners
Take a grid penalty to ConHome until noon.
Farage & Corbyn took advantage of this phenomenon, but they did not make it.
That is the triumph of middle-of-the-road politicians (of the right or the left). Obviously, if the middle-of-the-roaders had been so successful, then the Labour and Tory Parties could never have been take over by the extremes !!
As long as the Blairites and Cameroonies refuse to acknowledge their responsibility, then the disaffected are not coming back. The people who suffered at their hands are not going to be satisfied by a return to the status quo.
That is why most laughed at the ridiculous TIGgers, even while pb.com held its collective breath in awe.
Putin may or may not have been right to say Liberalism is dead. But, Liberalism has had no empathy for its victims. That is why we are where we are.
The Conservative and Unionist Party has gone well past this point and Tory Remainers must be thinking what the point of staying in the party is when the centre of their party has drifted so far away.
Mr. Doof, yeah, just like they nicked Saturnalia
On the F1 stuff, I've found some interesting prospects but I want a bit more coffee before spraying money down the drain.
Overall, we have passed peak-Corbyn and peak-Momentum. In a few years they will be a huge stain on Labour’s history, but nothing more. Labour will remain further to the left than it was under Blair and Brown, but it will be a softer, more mainstream left.
Given all that, I expect the vast majority of undoubtedly morally compromised Labour MPs to stay - and for the Tories to win most seats, but not a majority, at the next GE if Johnson calls a snap poll.
It looks different for the Tories. The party has clearly turned right and become a lot more English nationalist. That’s been a bottom-up process, not a top down one, so is much less about who the leader is. When No Deal exposes all of the Brexiteer claims about Global Britain for the delusions they are, will the current membership accept that and tack back to the pragmàtic centre? I am not so sure.
The problem is that for parties to be displaced under our system they need to implode - as the official Liberals did in 1918 and 1924 - and have a replacement at hand to stop them rising again.
The risk for Labour is that while there is an obvious and plausible replacement for them - the Liberal Democrats - it's far from clear the same holds true for the Tories, as their main rivals are a single issue ego trip led by a third rate failure who looks like a frog and whose speeches are not much more intelligible than those of a frog.
But that is not to say Labour won't survive or the Tories will. If the last five years have taught us anything, it is that the rules of politics have been torn up.
Pretty good article too, but then the thread headers here generally are.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/29/passions-blowing-boris-johnson-into-no-10-could-yet-bring-him-down
We're not at that point yet, but if the Lib Dems get a poll boost from Swinson, say, and Corbyn continues to refuse to change course on Brexit and internal matters, including antisemitism, dragging them down further, some may judge it's not just their consciences that will be saved by leaving.
And I don't recognise the Tories as the party I once opposed. There was a sort of noblesse oblige about many of them once upon a time, but Thatcher encouraged into the party a lot of people who had a different world-view; 'pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm all right', and they seem to have taken over.
The present political climate is so fluid that there are a vast range of political scenarios that has OGH in paroxysm of delight at the thread possibilities.
We only need to look at the short history of TIG and CHUK to note the phenomenon. At one moment they attract a group of notable MP's and poll double digits and in the blink of a political eye they are flushed down the gurgler in very short order.
We live in interesting times.
She tries to hold up the mirror of Corbynism to her party and her colleagues either can’t see it or don’t mind. Very sad.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/06/joanne-bartley-has-our-party-gone-mad-no-deal-brexiteers-are-acting-like-pro-corbyn-extremists.html
Betting Post
F1: pre-race ramble will be up in a bit, but the two tips I'll include are:
Hulkenberg to beat Perez (2.75 on Ladbrokes)
Verstappen to win (7.8 Betfair, hedged at 3)
The Racing Point is now the second slowest car. Perez's points have come from early in the season, whereas most of Hulkenberg's are recent, and the reason he has a penalty is due to an engine upgrade.
Verstappen's been very competitive in qualifying and the Red Bull will be relatively faster in the race (which he won last year, starting from 4th).
Would that be the part that we were paying for the transition period...?
In Labour, with anti-semitism, you have fundamentally a moral failure of the leadership. They have also been willing to tolerate the wholesale takeover of positions of power within the party by people who share that moral failure. These groups tend to be self-sustaining. It may be that Brexit creates the means by which power can be wrested from this group, but it’s not clear to me that there is any individual candidate with the charisma or reach that could topple Corbyn from his current post.
The issue for Labour is that this trend is both self-sustaining and self reinforcing. Without a wholesale purge - like Kinnock did with Militant - I don’t see how the moderates regain control. The challenge that they face (and I was young at the time so happy to be corrected) is that Kinnock controlled the leadership positions in the party and had the support of moderate unions. Today the positions of power are reversed, with the extremists also having a significant body of support among the membership
May be a Labour supporter can highlight someone with the broad appeal, tactical nouse, low cunning, and access to the key power groups in the party to take back control? I can’t see anyone from the outside
(Conservatives to come)
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/06/austria-pre-race-2019.html
Discovered on Twitter only two drivers are actually starting in the positions they qualified. Mmm, penalties.
Noblesse Oblige was always the hallmark of the Conservative Party, and it suggested they meant well, even if some of their solutions were iffy. Mr T brought in the more 'do this or else' solutions.
Labour used to exude a caring patriotism, and the Liberals/LDs gave out a peacenik, Panglossian aura.
We now have a the LDs in a more militant 'we know best' mood, epitomised by the refusal to accept compromise or the will of the people.
Labour, a captive of the hard left, will force people to accept whatever is deemed the party line. A strain of anti-Americanism, pro Hamas foreign policy, a strong level of control to force people to conform, and punishment for all class-enemies.
The once amiable Tories have gone into a 'we aint taking this is any more' attitude.
This sort of hardening is personified by t-shirts proclaiming 'I've never kissed a
Tory, Trot, or Pinko'. That used to be a trait of teenagers like the Kevin portrayed by Harry Enfield, or Wolfie Smith (one for the oldies). They were always an object of ridicule. Not now.
Politics isn't real life anymore. It's not a matter of rubbing along. Hence the plethora of loons with "Activist' as their job-title.
All positions of responsibility in the Labour party are held either at the leader’s discretion or subject to annual election - directly or indirectly. That means things can change very quickly. Corbyn is the glue that holds the far-left’s grip on the levers of power together. He is vacuous enough and pliable enough to be acceptable to all its many factions. There is no-one else like him.
But ultimately it all hinges on ongoing approval of Corbyn from members and the unions. That’s why the fact that long-time loyalists are beginning to break ranks (Rayner is the latest) is so significant. They think that approval is slipping.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the last quarter century the leadership of the country has been in the hands of people with little understanding or instinctive feel for the concerns of the average Joe. May did, I think, but her other weaknesses as a politician overwhelmed that. Labour leadership has mainly been middle class, but the roots of the broader “movement” helped them keep their finger in the pulse. I think the shift of unionisation to the public sector and away from manual labour has eroded this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I don't recall, although it's a VERY long time ago now, ever being worried about girl-friend's politics, at least in the initial, 'getting physically acquainted' stages.
Although I was never involved with the middle class marriage bureau for my youth, the Young Conservatives.
For the Tories, who have always tried to look after "our people", their focus is following the shift of their powerbase; what remains of Tory support in London is quickly melting away, and there are early signs that the Home Counties may be experiencing the breaking of Tory hegemony.
But there is nothing inherent in Brexit that is going to address these underlying concerns; indeed most economic projections suggest London & SE would be more resilient to the economic shock. The tragedy for our nation is that Brexit is an immense red herring to the real issues of inequality between the regions.
Unfair? It's how you treat politicians who voted remain who are trying to deliver Brexit.
Let’s say the election isn’t until 2022. You could easily have 5 more years of Corbyn in leadership. How many of the aspiring successors won’t cone the same tradition by then?
All it is indicative of is that the Tories DNA is towards limiting the government’s reach into citizens’ pockets to what is necessary
(And if the Labour Party want to make the next election about Tory tax cuts be my guest)
Trump is good addition to the list of deplorable.
And really given Obama's was nominated barely into his presidency before he even had an opportunity to earn it, Itd be amusing to see if Trump, arsehole that he is, actually had a concrete achievement.
As for diehard Remainers who can no longer stomach a Boris led Tory Party or Blairites in Labour who can no longer stomach Corbynism there is always the LDs, as Michael Heseltine and Chuka Umunna have already discovered
I don’t know Lee or Grieve, but I think you believe positively voting against your own party in a Vonc is easier than it is
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Small town England said “no thanks”
Bold strategy Cotton...
This. A thousand times this.
Superb header. Thank you @AlastairMeeks.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
Selecting an uncompromising Brexit as the means to achieve this seems a pretty high risk option.
Unfortunately we are in a Catch-22 situation (enjoying the new TV adaptation by the way!). FPTP won't change until we elect a government that wants it changed. FPTP ensures we will never elect a government that wants it changed.
Will the last fiscal conservative in the Tory party climb down from Boris's magic money tree and then please turn the lights out as he shuts the doors of the House if Commons as he refuses to rule out proroguing parliament.
Thank you.
By staying they are fooling themselves and others that the problem is remediable with the current leadership and/or not so bad.
https://twitter.com/sophyridgesky/status/1145244002347888641?s=21
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments