I’d be interested in hearing Laura Pidcock’s take. She normally has so much to say, but I don’t think we’ve heard a thing from her. I think her internet connection must have gone down about 10 pm on Thursday, and it’s not been restored since ...
Pity she’s not going to benefit from free state broadband.
Given the unpopularity of both the government and Boris Johnson, that is evidently the correct conclusion. But they’re far too high on hubris to notice.
Did you sleep through Thursday/Friday? The Conservatives got a majority of 80. I think you need to recalibrate "unpopularity" as meaning something other than "what I don't like".
As Churchill might have said, Boris's is the worst form of government - except for all the others.
They'll speak only to who they want and polarise matters even further.
They'll speak to the voters. They won't speak to Channel 4 news. Because - what is the bloody point? There's no floating voters in the Channel 4 newsroom.
They’ll speak at the voters. Big difference.
You wouldn't dream of patronising the voters of course, or as you like to call them, the subsidised inbred yokels.
There is an obvious solution for Johnson to the various infrastructure discussions above.
Britain is in rather desperate need to spend gazillions bringing our transport and communications infrastructure up to the levels of other modern major economies. But we don't have the technical know-how and we don't have the skilled tradespeople to actually build them.
So Johnson launches a new wave of City Technology Colleges. "We're going to Build it In Britain" or some Johnsonian waffle. Make it a patriotic task to not only build new roads and railways and deliver fibre broadband, but to incentivise people to learn the skills needed to deliver them.
And if Johnson is smart he will find a modern day version of "the White Heat of Technology" to warp this all together. Throw billions at wind power. Not for wooly environmental reasons. But because newly won Teesside and Grimsby seats are going to hugely prosper from this new industry.
Fast tracked on the job apprenticeships with day release tuition to teach both technical and business skills starting at 16
Given the unpopularity of both the government and Boris Johnson, that is evidently the correct conclusion. But they’re far too high on hubris to notice.
Did you sleep through Thursday/Friday? The Conservatives got a majoirty of 80. I think you need to recalibrate "unpopularity" as meaning something other than "what I don't like".
As Churchill might have said, Boris's is the worst form of government - except for all the others.
Unpopularity means all polling on the public’s perceptions of the government and Boris Johnson. That their opponents were disliked even more does not make them liked.
Given the unpopularity of both the government and Boris Johnson, that is evidently the correct conclusion. But they’re far too high on hubris to notice.
Did you sleep through Thursday/Friday? The Conservatives got a majority of 80. I think you need to recalibrate "unpopularity" as meaning something other than "what I don't like".
As Churchill might have said, Boris's is the worst form of government - except for all the others.
Its been tested against Corbyn, undoubtedly the least popular main party candidate of at least my lifetime. We have no idea how they would have performed against an average opponent.
They'll speak only to who they want and polarise matters even further.
They'll speak to the voters. They won't speak to Channel 4 news. Because - what is the bloody point? There's no floating voters in the Channel 4 newsroom.
They’ll speak at the voters. Big difference.
You wouldn't dream of patronising the voters of course, or as you like to call them, the subsidised inbred yokels.
I don’t sugar the pill. The desire of elderly stupid provincials to indulge their prejudices at the expense of those who actually create the wealth in the country is their least attractive feature.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
By saying they have ‘lent’ their votes to the Conservatives, she seems to believe that Labour are hereditarily entitled to some people’s support.
I wonder, if someone of Phillips ilk were to lead Labour, whether the Green Party might so well next time. They are ripe for invasion from the SWP/Corbynites
Anyone planning to join Labour to stop the Corbynite winning? We need some moderate entryism
@SouthamObserver is there. Hopefully a few more will join him - not my fight though right now. The country needs a stronger opposition than it currently has. Who knows - the real opening for the Lib Dems might be post Brexit running as a social democrat party because it looks to me like Labour are going to run further down the left wing rabbithole.
Anyone planning to join Labour to stop the Corbynite winning? We need some moderate entryism
Helluva struggle Horse. There area lot of angry nutters in the party. Easier to round up all the sane people, leave and form a new party, and leave the nutters to shout at each other.
By saying they have ‘lent’ their votes to the Conservatives, she seems to believe that Labour are hereditarily entitled to some people’s support.
I wonder, if someone of Phillips ilk were to lead Labour, whether the Green Party might so well next time. They are ripe for invasion from the SWP/Corbynites
They'll hijack anything which they can. If they can't control labour, they'll shift to another vehicle they're welcome at
I suspect the Left will not lightly forgive Jess Phillips for "I'll Stab Corbyn in the Front". Rightly so, actually.
It was good to see Flint holing Starmer & Thornberry below the line -- a pity that all the people she fingered as guilty (Benn, the wretched Cooper, Thornberry & Starmer) survived the cull.
So, I think the competition is really between Rayner & Long-Bailey.
If anyone could deliver a worse election result than Corby, it is Thornberry. And if anyone could deliver a worse election result than Swinson, it it is Moran.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
Well, for a start, you make sure the policies reflect the resources available. It's wrong that Government departments spend so much on debt interest. And you make sure that you've done the sums (so you're not promising to cover Wales in trees).
Anyone planning to join Labour to stop the Corbynite winning? We need some moderate entryism
@SouthamObserver is there. Hopefully a few more will join him - not my fight though right now. The country needs a stronger opposition than it currently has. Who knows - the real opening for the Lib Dems might be post Brexit running as a social democrat party because it looks to me like Labour are going to run further down the left wing rabbithole.
He tried and failed before. I expect (sadly) a similar thing will happen this time, but fair play to him for trying.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
The WASPI policy was not even apparently a bright idea. It was bar none the worst and most pandering policy of the campaign. Nothing but cynical political calculation, albeit one shared by every other party who also promised to do something about it, although the Green idea was to prioritise them under universal basic income rollout.
They'll speak only to who they want and polarise matters even further.
They'll speak to the voters. They won't speak to Channel 4 news. Because - what is the bloody point? There's no floating voters in the Channel 4 newsroom.
They’ll speak at the voters. Big difference.
You wouldn't dream of patronising the voters of course, or as you like to call them, the subsidised inbred yokels.
I don’t sugar the pill. The desire of elderly stupid provincials to indulge their prejudices at the expense of those who actually create the wealth in the country is their least attractive feature.
Because pensions lawyers SO create the wealth in this country.....
By saying they have ‘lent’ their votes to the Conservatives, she seems to believe that Labour are hereditarily entitled to some people’s support.
I wonder, if someone of Phillips ilk were to lead Labour, whether the Green Party might so well next time. They are ripe for invasion from the SWP/Corbynites
I believe Boris has also talked of being lent that vote by some people. Presumably so he can say he is not taking it for granted and will work to secure them for next time.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
Well, for a start, you make sure the policies reflect the resources available. It's wrong that Government departments spend so much on debt interest. And you make sure that you've done the sums (so you're not promising to cover Wales in trees).
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
The WASPI policy was not even apparently a bright idea. It was bar none the worst and most pandering policy of the campaign. Nothing but cynical political calculation, albeit one shared by every other party who also promised to do something about it, although the Green idea was to prioritise them under universal basic income rollout.
Yep, that was a fundamental point, where the Corbyn strategy just looked like it was throwing any old promise to try to swing votes.
Hugely expensive, uncosted and looked like panic (which it probably was)
In terms of increase in votes won the Lib Dem’s were the clear winners of the election both in terms of absolute and percentage. Especially in SE England they achieved some massive swings as they took votes from the tories as well as labour. Even in Scotland where they faced the remainer SNP they added votes.
It is therefore far too early to write off the Lib Dem’s and their agenda. The next major elections are in Scotland next year. They will add seats on regional vote list if they continue to perform as they have before and this will return Swinson to politics if she wants to.
They'll speak only to who they want and polarise matters even further.
They'll speak to the voters. They won't speak to Channel 4 news. Because - what is the bloody point? There's no floating voters in the Channel 4 newsroom.
They’ll speak at the voters. Big difference.
You wouldn't dream of patronising the voters of course, or as you like to call them, the subsidised inbred yokels.
I don’t sugar the pill. The desire of elderly stupid provincials to indulge their prejudices at the expense of those who actually create the wealth in the country is their least attractive feature.
You dont support them, but the corbynite tendency would find comfort in those words i expect.
All parties of the left would be well advised not to head down any sort of "rejoin" referendum path including the Lib Dems. There is an inherent structural bias toward leave in our FPTP system. Argue for Norway or whatever but rejoining is a poor electoral choice.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
The WASPI policy was not even apparently a bright idea. It was bar none the worst and most pandering policy of the campaign. Nothing but cynical political calculation, albeit one shared by every other party who also promised to do something about it, although the Green idea was to prioritise them under universal basic income rollout.
Some means tested relief for the most struggling WASPI women is fine by me ... but the policy that Labour in the end articulated was truly grotesque in its arbitrariness and unfairness.
And the Labour website where you plugged in your details and got told how much money you will get back was pretty demeaning.
I suspect the Left will not lightly forgive Jess Phillips for "I'll Stab Corbyn in the Front". Rightly so, actually.
It was good to see Flint holing Starmer & Thornberry below the line -- a pity that all the people she fingered as guilty (Benn, the wretched Cooper, Thornberry & Starmer) survived the cull.
So, I think the competition is really between Rayner & Long-Bailey.
If anyone could deliver a worse election result than Corby, it is Thornberry. And if anyone could deliver a worse election result than Swinson, it it is Moran.
I have just watched Novaro Media reporting on the loss of Blyth Valley.
The lack of self awareness of the girl with the microphone is astounding. She blames everyone for voting other than for Labour. But I particularly groaned at her comment that she had been to Stoke South on campaign. A seat Labour were never going to win. Why was she not in Stoke North where they might have had a faint chance?
These people are completely divorced from reality. And yet they are so self-righteous and holier than thou they simply cannot deal with their own huge failures.
I don’t expect young Labour activists around my age (or younger) to immediately ‘get’ why they lost nor do I blame them for the loss. They don’t really hold that much power, or influence in terms of decision making. The same goes for Owen Jones. I blame people like McCluskey, Murray, Milne and Corbyn all of whom held considerable power and who ignored the evidence of public opinion on the leadership when it was right in front of them.
You are one of the few younger Labour activists/supporters who clearly gets out of their comfort zone. PB is pretty hostile towards the current Labour leadership and I think a fair reflection of how the country sees it. I think if more of your contemporaries did the same it would be beneficial for Labour. Staying in one's comfort zone, or safe space as it is now termed, doesn't really help anyone.
Unfortunately it seems like they are doing the opposite and blocking out more outside opinion.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
If she hadn't she may well have seen more conservative loses
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
I think there is also scope to argue for things like railways - but I think the argument it should be argued from is different. I think an angle of Britishness would probably go over better, than using it within the umbrella of talking down the country.
Labour needs to look far more pragmatic and less ideological.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
It was logical, and she and her successors will keep doing it - and winning every election held in Scotland - forever, until independence is achieved.
Latest rumour circulating is that Johnson plans to say no to Indyref2 and challenge the pro-independence bloc to win the 2021 Scottish Parliament election before granting the section 30 order. That seems sensible: deal with the fallout from one referendum at a time.
The SNP will win that election, and then they'll either lose the referendum (in which case Boris Johnson gets to play saviour of the Union) or they'll win it (in which case most of the English electorate won't be that bothered, the Tory majority at Westminster goes up by about 50, and Scotland's transfer payments get redistributed to the North and to Wales.) In short, the two sides in Scotland would be playing for high stakes, but the Prime Minister can win from either result. Why wouldn't he do that?
By saying they have ‘lent’ their votes to the Conservatives, she seems to believe that Labour are hereditarily entitled to some people’s support.
I wonder, if someone of Phillips ilk were to lead Labour, whether the Green Party might so well next time. They are ripe for invasion from the SWP/Corbynites
I believe Boris has also talked of being lent that vote by some people. Presumably so he can say he is not taking it for granted and will work to secure them for next time.
Yes I think it’s ok for the receiver of the votes to be seen saying they are ‘lent’, that looks polite, but not for the one from who they’ve been taken, that looks entitled.
All parties of the left would be well advised not to head down any sort of "rejoin" referendum path including the Lib Dems. There is an inherent structural bias toward leave in our FPTP system. Argue for Norway or whatever but rejoining is a poor electoral choice.
As I said yesterday, they need to accept Brexit (even if they don’t like it) for a little while. There may come a time when rejoinism becomes an acceptable argument, but that time is not now. See what happens when Brexit gets through, let it sink in, and then look at the options for the future. Personally I can’t see a successful rejoin argument getting traction until at least a decade away, and most probably longer. And all that depends if once we settle into the Brexit status quo it actually recedes as an issue to the great majority of voters.
I suspect the Left will not lightly forgive Jess Phillips for "I'll Stab Corbyn in the Front". Rightly so, actually.
It was good to see Flint holing Starmer & Thornberry below the line -- a pity that all the people she fingered as guilty (Benn, the wretched Cooper, Thornberry & Starmer) survived the cull.
So, I think the competition is really between Rayner & Long-Bailey.
If anyone could deliver a worse election result than Corby, it is Thornberry. And if anyone could deliver a worse election result than Swinson, it it is Moran.
When you have lost seats, you should choose a leader who can get those seats back for you. The LibDems lost Leave-voting seats, Brecon & Radnorshire, North Norfolk, Eastbourne, Carshalton. Even when Brexit is no longer an issue, Moran really has nothing, absolutely nothing, to offer the voters in these seats.
There is room for two parties on the left -- but not two parties on the left fighting for the same segment of the electorate, the progressive middle-class.
All parties of the left would be well advised not to head down any sort of "rejoin" referendum path including the Lib Dems. There is an inherent structural bias toward leave in our FPTP system. Argue for Norway or whatever but rejoining is a poor electoral choice.
Indeed. We are leaving the European Union. Its done. The argument now moves onto the nature of our relationship after we leave.
In Corbynite news, no overt despair in my corbynite family household or in depth discussion of the result, but I've been grilled at length about how postal voting and counting votes work, and whether it could be gamed
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
If she hadn't she may well have seen more conservative loses
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
I hope so, but Boris taking us out of the EU makes it much more likely. The softer the Brexit the better for the union.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
The WASPI policy was not even apparently a bright idea. It was bar none the worst and most pandering policy of the campaign. Nothing but cynical political calculation, albeit one shared by every other party who also promised to do something about it, although the Green idea was to prioritise them under universal basic income rollout.
Some means tested relief for the most struggling WASPI women is fine by me ... but the policy that Labour in the end articulated was truly grotesque in its arbitrariness and unfairness.
And the Labour website where you plugged in your details and got told how much money you will get back was pretty demeaning.
That's the odd thing. Why pledge to cover the country in trees when you can oblige all builders to double, triple even, the trees they plant when they build a project? Why pledge to nationalise broadband when you can put a few billion into rural broadband, as well as free bb for the poorest homes for a fraction of the cost? The decisions and bias toward vast national programmes rather than solving the problem is a huge weakness.
All parties of the left would be well advised not to head down any sort of "rejoin" referendum path including the Lib Dems. There is an inherent structural bias toward leave in our FPTP system. Argue for Norway or whatever but rejoining is a poor electoral choice.
Indeed. We are leaving the European Union. Its done. The argument now moves onto the nature of our relationship after we leave.
On the EU relationship, personally I think Labour should just accept what the Government brings back for now. They really have no ability to shape the deal or the agenda - and I think trying to frustrate the process anymore will just confirm what the voters who abandoned the party already think.
The best thing Labour could do, is to hold their hands up and purge much of the Remain contingent to the back benches - but there are at least some competent politicians they would lose then.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
I think there is also scope to argue for things like railways - but I think the argument it should be argued from is different. I think an angle of Britishness would probably go over better, than using it within the umbrella of talking down the country.
Labour needs to look far more pragmatic and less ideological.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
Doesn't that look a lot like the current conservative government program then?
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
The WASPI policy was not even apparently a bright idea. It was bar none the worst and most pandering policy of the campaign. Nothing but cynical political calculation, albeit one shared by every other party who also promised to do something about it, although the Green idea was to prioritise them under universal basic income rollout.
Some means tested relief for the most struggling WASPI women is fine by me ... but the policy that Labour in the end articulated was truly grotesque in its arbitrariness and unfairness.
And the Labour website where you plugged in your details and got told how much money you will get back was pretty demeaning.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
This is the issue I think.
The public are open to very limited cases of nationalisation on pragmatic grounds - I think most think the railways are a good example - but Labour really went too far in 2019. I think 2017 had a decent-ish balance.
Heck, even New Labour originally planned to nationalise the railways.
Labour needs to start talking up the private and public sector again. This all really comes into the idea of hating Britain.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
But that's not the point, Labour didn't lose because it backed railway nationalisation. With a competent leader and that its only nationalisation policy, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was the scale of it that put people off.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence.
I'm not sure if that argument can get used without also arguing about the remain/leave vote share.
This is the problem the tories face. To fully implement a brexit requires the support of areas such as Northern Ireland and Scotland. There is no evidence it will get this support.
The Scots will happily set up a constitutional crisis by refusing to accept the Tory plans and suggest a referendum. Civil servants in Scotland will be caught serving two different masters. The courts will continue to be involved.
It seems to me that the only real solution will be to allow Scotland join the back stop. There will be a two tier brexit with England and Wales in one tier and Northern Ireland and Scotland in the other.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
Doesn't that look a lot like the current conservative government program then?
That isn't necessarily a bad thing though (I don't think the Tories will actually deliver any of those things but we will see)? In 1997 Labour looked like not much of a change at all - and really that's how Labour wins again.
Let the tiredness of Tory rule set in, look like an alternative, competent Government that people aren't scared of and Labour will come back. It's quite straightforward in principle.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
But that's not the point, Labour didn't lose because it backed railway nationalisation. With a competent leader and that its only nationalisation policy, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was the scale of it that put people off.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
I was questioning the claim that it is the strongest card Labour have. If it doesn't help them make progress in the seats they've lost, it doesn't sound that strong.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
Doesn't that look a lot like the current conservative government program then?
That isn't necessarily a bad thing though (I don't think the Tories will actually deliver any of those things but we will see)? In 1997 Labour looked like not much of a change at all - and really that's how Labour wins again.
Let the tiredness of Tory rule set in, look like an alternative, competent Government that people aren't scared of and Labour will come back. It's quite straightforward in principle.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
Doesn't that look a lot like the current conservative government program then?
That isn't necessarily a bad thing though (I don't think the Tories will actually deliver any of those things but we will see)? In 1997 Labour looked like not much of a change at all - and really that's how Labour wins again.
Let the tiredness of Tory rule set in, look like an alternative, competent Government that people aren't scared of and Labour will come back. It's quite straightforward in principle.
In another 10 years time, sure.
They really need to make progress in five at minimum. 10 years is realistic to achieving a majority but I think in five years they can achieve a minority Government with a bit of effort.
So where does the WASPI bribe fit in with that? Where does nationalised broadband fit in? Neither of these are ideologocal pillars of the manifesto. Why can't he admit that these were policies that didn't work? (I'll freely admit I thought the former was gaining traction - clearly it wasn't)
Sure, I think they were examples of non-ideological apparently bright ideas which he went along with on a why-not basis but which didn't get traction. The difficulty is when there's someting you really feel is vital for a decent society which voters absolutely don't like - reasonably open access to asylum and family reunification is an example. Leave aside what you personally think about that issue, and assume you think something is really morally important (substitute whatever other unpopular cause you believe in). Do you
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else. * Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it? * Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I’d of thought it was quite simple Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet Invest in health and education Refocus and improve the benefit system Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
Doesn't that look a lot like the current conservative government program then?
That isn't necessarily a bad thing though (I don't think the Tories will actually deliver any of those things but we will see)? In 1997 Labour looked like not much of a change at all - and really that's how Labour wins again.
Let the tiredness of Tory rule set in, look like an alternative, competent Government that people aren't scared of and Labour will come back. It's quite straightforward in principle.
In another 10 years time, sure.
They really need to make progress in five at minimum. 10 years is realistic to achieving a majority but I think in five years they can achieve a minority Government with a bit of effort.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
But that's not the point, Labour didn't lose because it backed railway nationalisation. With a competent leader and that its only nationalisation policy, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was the scale of it that put people off.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
I was questioning the claim that it is the strongest card Labour have. If it doesn't help them make progress in the seats they've lost, it doesn't sound that strong.
I don't think anyone claimed it would - but that doesn't mean they should abandon it.
What lost Labour so many seats was Corbyn being terrible and Brexit. Both those issues will disappear with a new candidate (as long as they're good, albeit a tall order) and then Labour can move onto other issues they're stronger on.
I am intensely cynical that Johnson actually intends to do much about the fabric of our society and I am of the view that in five years people will be very disappointed that Brexit hasn't done much for them. Labour has a window of opportunity - but right now they seem intent on failing again.
I am encouraged though that there is more acknowledgement in the last 24 hours in Twitter of all places, that something has got to change with Labour. That's a good start.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
But that's not the point, Labour didn't lose because it backed railway nationalisation. With a competent leader and that its only nationalisation policy, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was the scale of it that put people off.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
I was questioning the claim that it is the strongest card Labour have. If it doesn't help them make progress in the seats they've lost, it doesn't sound that strong.
I think it’s certainly a policy that appeals in big cities and their commuter belts, though I take the point it is probably not the crucial policy for a lot of people.
Still, I don’t think it harms them and I’d suggest they stick with it.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
But that's not the point, Labour didn't lose because it backed railway nationalisation. With a competent leader and that its only nationalisation policy, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was the scale of it that put people off.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
I was questioning the claim that it is the strongest card Labour have. If it doesn't help them make progress in the seats they've lost, it doesn't sound that strong.
I don't think anyone claimed it would - but that doesn't mean they should abandon it.
What lost Labour so many seats was Corbyn being terrible and Brexit. Both those issues will disappear with a new candidate (as long as they're good, albeit a tall order) and then Labour can move onto other issues they're stronger on.
I am intensely cynical that Johnson actually intends to do much about the fabric of our society and I am of the view that in five years people will be very disappointed that Brexit hasn't done much for them. Labour has a window of opportunity - but right now they seem intent on failing again.
I am encouraged though that there is more acknowledgement in the last 24 hours in Twitter of all places, that something has got to change with Labour. That's a good start.
For all your understandable hopes they are all for nought unless labour can cut out the cancer that is momentum.
They'll speak only to who they want and polarise matters even further.
They'll speak to the voters. They won't speak to Channel 4 news. Because - what is the bloody point? There's no floating voters in the Channel 4 newsroom.
They’ll speak at the voters. Big difference.
You wouldn't dream of patronising the voters of course, or as you like to call them, the subsidised inbred yokels.
I don’t sugar the pill. The desire of elderly stupid provincials to indulge their prejudices at the expense of those who actually create the wealth in the country is their least attractive feature.
I'll bet the old bastards whose pensions you leech off will be delighted to read your honest opinion of them.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
If she hadn't she may well have seen more conservative loses
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
I hope so, but Boris taking us out of the EU makes it much more likely. The softer the Brexit the better for the union.
Although the harder the Brexit, the greater the economic challenges of Independence. It is not straightforward. Scotland needs an open border with the U.K. The harder the Brexit, the harder the post independence border.
So soft Brexit potentially reduces desire for a referendum, but hard Brexit should reduce the likelihood that Scotland votes to leave if a referendum occurs.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
If she hadn't she may well have seen more conservative loses
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
I hope so, but Boris taking us out of the EU makes it much more likely. The softer the Brexit the better for the union.
The Scots are waiting to see the deal they are offered by BJ and also by the EU. The result of any new referendum is not forgone. We are in a dynamic situation where there are too many unknowns to make any clear long term predictions.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
If she hadn't she may well have seen more conservative loses
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
I hope so, but Boris taking us out of the EU makes it much more likely. The softer the Brexit the better for the union.
The Scots are waiting to see the deal they are offered by BJ and also by the EU. The result of any new referendum is not forgone. We are in a dynamic situation where there are too many unknowns to make any clear long term predictions.
JRM apparently going is good news. I suspect we are past the peak of his influence in the parliamentary party now.
Boris could do without an ERG awkward squad forming on the back benches, in the same way the “old Labour” faction started to make things a little trickier for Blair post-Iraq, but on balance given the numbers he can probably afford a couple of awkward sticks here and there.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
But that's not the point, Labour didn't lose because it backed railway nationalisation. With a competent leader and that its only nationalisation policy, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was the scale of it that put people off.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
I was questioning the claim that it is the strongest card Labour have. If it doesn't help them make progress in the seats they've lost, it doesn't sound that strong.
I think it’s certainly a policy that appeals in big cities and their commuter belts, though I take the point it is probably not the crucial policy for a lot of people.
Still, I don’t think it harms them and I’d suggest they stick with it.
Might be enough to keep the London vote on side though, I don't think the Tories intend to offer much on that front.
We must not forget that New Labour did actually win seats in the South. Perhaps they can supplant or replace the LD vote if it continues to go nowhere.
Really it is in Labour's best interest to see a proper LD revival.
All parties of the left would be well advised not to head down any sort of "rejoin" referendum path including the Lib Dems. There is an inherent structural bias toward leave in our FPTP system. Argue for Norway or whatever but rejoining is a poor electoral choice.
Indeed. We are leaving the European Union. Its done. The argument now moves onto the nature of our relationship after we leave.
Should have been done 3.5 years ago.
Largely it was. Then Calamity May the substitute PM decided to hold a re-election because she disliked the result of the first election held by the elected PM. That election filled the house with a load of remainers who understood that the 2017 parliament under basic principles of parliamentary sovereignty so beloved of leavers was not bound by the actions of its predecessors.
I don't care about advisory referenda called by idiots. This is a representative democracy and you get what you vote for. We delayed Brexit because in 2017's unnecessary re-election we elected more remain MPs. That was the literal will of the people. Just as the 2019 re-election has delivered a substantial majority of leave MPs. You get what you vote for.
And 10 years down the line having left and found things not to the public's taste its entirely possible to elect a parliament who ask to rejoin. That parliament wouldn't be bound by the actions of this one either. That people don't seem to get this simple principle of democracy is something that politicians need to help educate people on.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing though (I don't think the Tories will actually deliver any of those things but we will see)? In 1997 Labour looked like not much of a change at all - and really that's how Labour wins again.
Let the tiredness of Tory rule set in, look like an alternative, competent Government that people aren't scared of and Labour will come back. It's quite straightforward in principle.
In another 10 years time, sure.
If Boris and his team get their shit together, not even then. Many of these seats that are falling away from Labour will continue to do so. Areas that were once part of Labour's hinterland will start to fall out of its orbit. Places like Hull - surrounded by a sea of blue. How have they benefitted by holding out? Places like Doncaster will have little to resist the tide coming down from Grimsby through Scunthorpe. The just have no need to be Labour any more.
There's a very interesting case to be made that the LibDems should withdraw entirely from Westminster politics and aim to become a party purely of local government.
It is likely to have a greater influence on people's lives if it is lobbying for changes from a base of many thousands of councillors, rather than a dozen MPs.
So, to summarise, the Eternal Party of Government is correct in whatever it does ("what this country really needs is big government infrastructure programmes, as I've consistently been saying since 1979, only Maggie didn't listen..."), opposition parties should just disband and mind their own dustbin business, and at no point should politicians face journalistic scrutiny.
Anyone planning to join Labour to stop the Corbynite winning? We need some moderate entryism
@SouthamObserver is there. Hopefully a few more will join him - not my fight though right now. The country needs a stronger opposition than it currently has. Who knows - the real opening for the Lib Dems might be post Brexit running as a social democrat party because it looks to me like Labour are going to run further down the left wing rabbithole.
He tried and failed before. I expect (sadly) a similar thing will happen this time, but fair play to him for trying.
A pragmatic centrist friend has just joined Labour with exactly the same objective. They're welcome, though I think they need to downplay the scorn about leftists joining Labour for the same reason. Insofar as they agree with the general themes of greater fairness and equality and merely have different views on how to get there, they're all welcome.
i thought the interview with Nandy was a bit boring, unfortunately - we need a bit more dynamism. Angela is tempting me.
Anyone planning to join Labour to stop the Corbynite winning? We need some moderate entryism
@SouthamObserver is there. Hopefully a few more will join him - not my fight though right now. The country needs a stronger opposition than it currently has. Who knows - the real opening for the Lib Dems might be post Brexit running as a social democrat party because it looks to me like Labour are going to run further down the left wing rabbithole.
Unless Ian Paisley Junior becomes the leader, lol.
They'll speak only to who they want and polarise matters even further.
They'll speak to the voters. They won't speak to Channel 4 news. Because - what is the bloody point? There's no floating voters in the Channel 4 newsroom.
They’ll speak at the voters. Big difference.
You wouldn't dream of patronising the voters of course, or as you like to call them, the subsidised inbred yokels.
I don’t sugar the pill. The desire of elderly stupid provincials to indulge their prejudices at the expense of those who actually create the wealth in the country is their least attractive feature.
I'll bet the old bastards whose pensions you leech off will be delighted to read your honest opinion of them.
With PR the 'elderly stupid provincial' seats in this region would have four LD, Labour or Green MPs to counter the six Tory MPs, e.g.
That Jeremy Corbyn article is just about as tone deaf as is possible. Not even a scintilla of contrition.
Far from his humble seeming manner Jeremy Corbyn is in fact an incredibly arrogant man. He knows he is correct and morally virtuous in a far more intense way than most politicians, who may all have a bit of messiah complex about them. Nothing could show him is wrong. Even when his popularity fades to what it used to be that will be proof he is right because the 'wrong' people are criticising him.
As opposed to which other politicians? The messiah complex, the certainty of rectitude you condemn in Corbyn could surely be as easily applied to Cameron and Blair, or even Thatcher and Churchill.
There are two separate issues which get blurred here.
There's (a) being sure you're right and (b) recognising that voters disagree and modifying your policies to the extent necessary to get a majority.
VERY few people (politicians or anyone else) respond to an adverse election (let alone a bad poll) by saying "Ah, I see my policies were not just unpopular but actually wrong and I need to rethink what I believe". To a greater or lesser extent, they say "In order to achieve most of my good policies, I need to compromise with the voters by adopting some things I don't really agree with".
Disagreeing with that, rather than a messianic strain, is what really drives Corbyn. He is very reluctant to even pretend that he's going to do something he thinks is wrong - at best one can get him to shut up and go along with it (keeping Trident, not abolishing the monarchy). In other respects, he feels one needs to simply argue the case for what one thinks (after proper discussion) is the right thing to do. If you win, great. If not, keep trying.
Most of us have a streak of "Oh well, if the voters want X, we'd better include it in our manifesto, so we can get a majority for our good stuff (and our Ministerial jobs) even though we privately think it's empty rhetoric/pointless/low priority/undesirable". A lot of the discussion on this forum is like that, and some here have openly advocated real cynicism - fake news, cunning rhetoric, and so on - in order to win. There's a case for it if you think it's crucial to win, but it's also something that drives public cynicism, and to quite a large extent I think that Britain is better-served by politicians who simply say frankly what they believe is right. If they're actually right, their time will come. If they're wrong, then it's a good thing that they don't win.
LOL
It's like those comic (self-)assessments when asked to say what could be improved.
Jones is too hard on himself and uncompromising in pursuing perfection in everything he does.
Probably JRM asked to be “sacked”. He might be struggling a bit financially.
JRM's much-admired collection of fine old English banknotes, as we used to say. It was always reported JRM's real ambition was to be Speaker but that opening has now closed.
However ill-judged were JRM's Grenfell remarks (and, whisper it gently, his flirting with antisemitic tropes) we must remember he was brought into the Cabinet to neutralise the ERG, so for that reason I expect him to remain until February.
CHB - the points you are making come back to my point yesterday that the Labour electoral coalition will be tough to build back up. Not impossible, but it will take time.
The fact is you have two groups - big city metropolitan well-educated millennials, minority groups and left-leaning professionals, and the white working class northern voters - whose views on certain issues differ in a number of ways. If Labour want to move to solidify the former and try and get waverers down South to vote for them, at the expense of the WWC, it’s a strategy but it is going to take a long time to bear fruit. And has the added problem of the FPTP structure not giving them a majority in those kinds of seats right now.
Or they try and triangulate and get the northern WWC back on board. But to do that they can’t just go for the platitudes anymore. Someone is going to have to compromise, somewhere - on immigration, in Europe, on support for small businesses and people who want to work and see the benefits of doing so on themselves and their communities. There’s no reason why they can’t do both, but they need to speak a language other than that of north London and look to really understand these voters better.
Labour are facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant in UK politics, unless they can detach momentum
It has happened in Scotland and the earthquake last thursday has put them perilously close to the same in England and Wales, apart from London
If Boris does a SNP in England and Wales over the next five years, he could be looking at 15 years as PM
Just checking, how disastrous was it in the end for Nicola to put Indy at the centre of the SNP GE campaign?
If she hadn't she may well have seen more conservative loses
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
I'll take 'Putting indy at the centre of their campaign will be a DISASTER for the SNP' > 'Putting indy at the centre of their campaign stopped the SNP from having an even better result' as an admission of sorts.
CHB - the points you are making come back to my point yesterday that the Labour electoral coalition will be tough to build back up. Not impossible, but it will take time.
The fact is you have two groups - big city metropolitan well-educated millennials, minority groups and left-leaning professionals, and the white working class northern voters - whose views on certain issues differ in a number of ways. If Labour want to move to solidify the former and try and get waverers down South to vote for them, at the expense of the WWC, it’s a strategy but it is going to take a long time to bear fruit. And has the added problem of the FPTP structure not giving them a majority in those kinds of seats right now.
Or they try and triangulate and get the northern WWC back on board. But to do that they can’t just go for the platitudes anymore. Someone is going to have to compromise, somewhere - on immigration, in Europe, on support for small businesses and people who want to work and see the benefits of doing so on themselves and their communities. There’s no reason why they can’t do both, but they need to speak a language other than that of north London and look to really understand these voters better.
My view is Labour probably has to do little to maintain its Southern base. Give them a few bungs on tuition fees, railways, the environment and they really have nowhere else to go. I speak as one of these people, I am not going to vote Tory, I am not going to vote LD as they have no hope of winning (despite everything, we did see that effect this year) and I know full well a Labour Party in Government is better than a Labour Party not doing anything.
I'm not even convinced the lack of "wokeness" would really put people off. The membership might narrow but who cares about that?
We're in a post Brexit world now, the reality is FOM is going away anyway, so these Southern voters are going to accept that.
I think Labour has got very caught up in the People's Vote movement and now this has gone away too, these people will vote on other issues.
I genuinely think the metropolitan, Southern base is much less of a problem than people think. Even Corbyn had lost popularity with them.
Nationalisation of the railways is one of the strongest cards Labour have in their deck. I don’t think there’s anything majorly wrong with what they’re proposing in the eyes of the public and I think they should stick with that policy. Heck in certain situations I could be persuaded to back it.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
I wonder how high rail nationalisation is on the list of priorities of the voters Labour lost last week. I suspect not that high.
You'd be far better off promising to nationalise and improve buses as a top priority. Firstly they're in an even worse state, secondly, it impacts the kind of voters Labour needs far more than making a season ticket from Guildford to Waterloo much cheaper. How many people in places like Blyth or Bury use the bus every day to get to work or do their shopping? Far more than regularly use the train.
Now, I know Labour promised to nationalise the buses too - but it really was an afterthought behind trains, which is something of an obsession - even though the problems with the rail network are mostly down to capacity - something that will have to be dealt with over a generation, not a parliament. Buses on the otherhand, you could do wonders with a sum that would've been a fair amount, but hardly huge in comparison to other mammoth pledges.
JRM apparently going is good news. I suspect we are past the peak of his influence in the parliamentary party now.
Boris could do without an ERG awkward squad forming on the back benches, in the same way the “old Labour” faction started to make things a little trickier for Blair post-Iraq, but on balance given the numbers he can probably afford a couple of awkward sticks here and there.
Trouble is until the whips have had a few chats in the tea rooms, it might not be clear just what some of the new MPs think about Brexit (or anything else for that matter). Remember that even after the fact of Brexit in January, there will be more negotiations with Europe during the transition period. Plenty of time for more red lines to emerge.
There's a very interesting case to be made that the LibDems should withdraw entirely from Westminster politics and aim to become a party purely of local government.
It is likely to have a greater influence on people's lives if it is lobbying for changes from a base of many thousands of councillors, rather than a dozen MPs.
So, to summarise, the Eternal Party of Government is correct in whatever it does ("what this country really needs is big government infrastructure programmes, as I've consistently been saying since 1979, only Maggie didn't listen..."), opposition parties should just disband and mind their own dustbin business, and at no point should politicians face journalistic scrutiny.
Sounds lovely. And not at all disturbing.
I haven't said Labour should disband. Just that the LibDems strength is local politics. They manage to win local councils where they don't follow that up with Wetminster seats.
If they hadn't been on the ballot paper in 2019, I wonder how different the map might look? If the over-riding driver to votes in the UK is usually the anti-Tories, then splitting the anti-Tories is what will drive your Eternal Party of Government meme.
I'm just thinking outside the box here. LibDems reach an agreement with Labour: you stand aside for us in locals, we will stand aside for you in generals.
Anyone planning to join Labour to stop the Corbynite winning? We need some moderate entryism
I am really quite tempted, especially as I am desperately disappointed by the LibDems. If Labour were taken over by the Corbynites I can't help feel that the LibDems allowed their 'Yellow Tory' contingent to rule the roost when something more creative and imaginative might have helped a breakthrough.
So, yes I am.
However, the next leader of the Labour party will need to be someone who is prepared to embrace Brexit and not just as some token either: but really gets why they lost the working class (northern) vote. No patronising. Someone who gets it.
I honestly believe the lib dems have more chance to change now that Tom Brake has gone. He was the puppeteer behind many of the disastrous strategic decisions. He was not prepared to compromise one inch on Brexit and had an unwavering view that the Lib Dems did not have to stand down in labour held seats. Maybe some reality can now come back to the party although Ed Davey is another old school lib dem who has major narcissistic tendencies.
There's a very interesting case to be made that the LibDems should withdraw entirely from Westminster politics and aim to become a party purely of local government.
It is likely to have a greater influence on people's lives if it is lobbying for changes from a base of many thousands of councillors, rather than a dozen MPs.
So, to summarise, the Eternal Party of Government is correct in whatever it does ("what this country really needs is big government infrastructure programmes, as I've consistently been saying since 1979, only Maggie didn't listen..."), opposition parties should just disband and mind their own dustbin business, and at no point should politicians face journalistic scrutiny.
Sounds lovely. And not at all disturbing.
I haven't said Labour should disband. Just that the LibDems strength is local politics. They manage to win local councils where they don't follow that up with Wetminster seats.
If they hadn't been on the ballot paper in 2019, I wonder how different the map might look? If the over-riding driver to votes in the UK is usually the anti-Tories, then splitting the anti-Tories is what will drive your Eternal Party of Government meme.
I'm just thinking outside the box here. LibDems reach an agreement with Labour: you stand aside for us in locals, we will stand aside for you in generals.
It depends where the Lib Dems go. If the Lib Dems go left then it's fine but I don't think Labour is going to go far enough to the right to match with the Lib Dems, even under a more moderate leader.
Swinson spent the election courting Tories - when the natural Lib Dem base of the 2000s was really people at the same level as Blair, or even more to the left in some cases. The Lib Dem party of today is not courting the same voters as Labour.
Moran might move the party back to the left again, it's hard to see.
The Lib Dems and Labour should definitely do some kind of unofficial pact though.
I think some have not looked closely at what Caroline Flint is saying. Primarily she blames Labour Remainers. She also has endorsed (though not, I think, backed) Rebecca Long-Bailey as a viable successor.
ETA she also ran a very idiosyncratic campaign including endorsements from Tories like Aaron Bell, whoever he is.
Comments
As Churchill might have said, Boris's is the worst form of government - except for all the others.
https://youtu.be/COt65HZCJaA
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-will-sacked-21095357
* Insist on it and hope voters will forgive it because they like other things? You may lose and achieve nothing on this or anything else.
* Repudiate it and betray vulnerable people? You are abandoning something you think important for political advantage - can you live with it?
* Pretend to repudiate it and sneak it in anyway when you win? Your cynical underhanded approach will increase distrust in politics.
What would you do? I think it's genuinely difficult.
I wonder, if someone of Phillips ilk were to lead Labour, whether the Green Party might so well next time. They are ripe for invasion from the SWP/Corbynites
The country needs a stronger opposition than it currently has. Who knows - the real opening for the Lib Dems might be post Brexit running as a social democrat party because it looks to me like Labour are going to run further down the left wing rabbithole.
It was good to see Flint holing Starmer & Thornberry below the line -- a pity that all the people she fingered as guilty (Benn, the wretched Cooper, Thornberry & Starmer) survived the cull.
So, I think the competition is really between Rayner & Long-Bailey.
If anyone could deliver a worse election result than Corby, it is Thornberry. And if anyone could deliver a worse election result than Swinson, it it is Moran.
Hugely expensive, uncosted and looked like panic (which it probably was)
It is therefore far too early to write off the Lib Dem’s and their agenda. The next major elections are in Scotland next year. They will add seats on regional vote list if they continue to perform as they have before and this will return Swinson to politics if she wants to.
There is an inherent structural bias toward leave in our FPTP system. Argue for Norway or whatever but rejoining is a poor electoral choice.
Strip out the backward looking policies of nationalization and union power
Strip out the giveaways like WASPI and internet
Invest in health and education
Refocus and improve the benefit system
Find ways of supporting SME’s
And that’s about it, modest tax rises on high earners and corporations.
Look at infrastructure projects on a ROI basis and borrow to fund where it makes sense.
And the Labour website where you plugged in your details and got told how much money you will get back was pretty demeaning.
Unfortunately it seems like they are doing the opposite and blocking out more outside opinion.
SNP won 45% of the vote leaving 55% against independence. During the campaign support for the union grew and to be fair even Nicola admitted today that not all of her supporters want independence
I expect that sometime from summer 2021 the pressure for a referendum will reach a peak, depending on Holyrood 21 election, and a referendum may be granted
However, I have always maintained that when faced with the ramifications of disolving a 400 year old union the Scots will vote to stay part of the UK
Labour needs to look far more pragmatic and less ideological.
Latest rumour circulating is that Johnson plans to say no to Indyref2 and challenge the pro-independence bloc to win the 2021 Scottish Parliament election before granting the section 30 order. That seems sensible: deal with the fallout from one referendum at a time.
The SNP will win that election, and then they'll either lose the referendum (in which case Boris Johnson gets to play saviour of the Union) or they'll win it (in which case most of the English electorate won't be that bothered, the Tory majority at Westminster goes up by about 50, and Scotland's transfer payments get redistributed to the North and to Wales.) In short, the two sides in Scotland would be playing for high stakes, but the Prime Minister can win from either result. Why wouldn't he do that?
There is room for two parties on the left -- but not two parties on the left fighting for the same segment of the electorate, the progressive middle-class.
The best thing Labour could do, is to hold their hands up and purge much of the Remain contingent to the back benches - but there are at least some competent politicians they would lose then.
But it is a mistake to think the public want to renationalise everything that isn’t working particularly well (or those that are working acceptably well but could do with some reform). I think that’s where Labour came a cropper on the nationalisation front.
Will we ever see its like again?
However, Scotland is integral to my family and I have seen the independence movement in action since my childhood in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950s
I am convinced Scotland will not vote for independence and I have no fear for a late 2021 referendum
The public are open to very limited cases of nationalisation on pragmatic grounds - I think most think the railways are a good example - but Labour really went too far in 2019. I think 2017 had a decent-ish balance.
Heck, even New Labour originally planned to nationalise the railways.
Labour needs to start talking up the private and public sector again. This all really comes into the idea of hating Britain.
Labour can't abandon everything it wants, because then it has no principles at all. It just needs to abandon being overly ideological. Railway nationalisation can be sold on pragmatic grounds - very few other nationalisations can.
I think railways are one of their most popular policies, they should maintain it and scrap pretty much everything else.
What they should do early on is prioritise defence.
The Scots will happily set up a constitutional crisis by refusing to accept the Tory plans and suggest a referendum. Civil servants in Scotland will be caught serving two different masters.
The courts will continue to be involved.
It seems to me that the only real solution will be to allow Scotland join the back stop. There will be a two tier brexit with England and Wales in one tier and Northern Ireland and Scotland in the other.
Let the tiredness of Tory rule set in, look like an alternative, competent Government that people aren't scared of and Labour will come back. It's quite straightforward in principle.
Can we not also have hundreds of predatory scorpions physically inserted into the interior of Rees-Mogg ?
What lost Labour so many seats was Corbyn being terrible and Brexit. Both those issues will disappear with a new candidate (as long as they're good, albeit a tall order) and then Labour can move onto other issues they're stronger on.
I am intensely cynical that Johnson actually intends to do much about the fabric of our society and I am of the view that in five years people will be very disappointed that Brexit hasn't done much for them. Labour has a window of opportunity - but right now they seem intent on failing again.
I am encouraged though that there is more acknowledgement in the last 24 hours in Twitter of all places, that something has got to change with Labour. That's a good start.
Still, I don’t think it harms them and I’d suggest they stick with it.
I am not holding my breath
So soft Brexit potentially reduces desire for a referendum, but hard Brexit should reduce the likelihood that Scotland votes to leave if a referendum occurs.
Boris could do without an ERG awkward squad forming on the back benches, in the same way the “old Labour” faction started to make things a little trickier for Blair post-Iraq, but on balance given the numbers he can probably afford a couple of awkward sticks here and there.
We must not forget that New Labour did actually win seats in the South. Perhaps they can supplant or replace the LD vote if it continues to go nowhere.
Really it is in Labour's best interest to see a proper LD revival.
I don't care about advisory referenda called by idiots. This is a representative democracy and you get what you vote for. We delayed Brexit because in 2017's unnecessary re-election we elected more remain MPs. That was the literal will of the people. Just as the 2019 re-election has delivered a substantial majority of leave MPs. You get what you vote for.
And 10 years down the line having left and found things not to the public's taste its entirely possible to elect a parliament who ask to rejoin. That parliament wouldn't be bound by the actions of this one either. That people don't seem to get this simple principle of democracy is something that politicians need to help educate people on.
Sounds lovely. And not at all disturbing.
i thought the interview with Nandy was a bit boring, unfortunately - we need a bit more dynamism. Angela is tempting me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_and_South_Herefordshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shropshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Using FPTP the two counties are one-party states (at central govt level).
It's like those comic (self-)assessments when asked to say what could be improved.
Jones is too hard on himself and uncompromising in pursuing perfection in everything he does.
However ill-judged were JRM's Grenfell remarks (and, whisper it gently, his flirting with antisemitic tropes) we must remember he was brought into the Cabinet to neutralise the ERG, so for that reason I expect him to remain until February.
The fact is you have two groups - big city metropolitan well-educated millennials, minority groups and left-leaning professionals, and the white working class northern voters - whose views on certain issues differ in a number of ways. If Labour want to move to solidify the former and try and get waverers down South to vote for them, at the expense of the WWC, it’s a strategy but it is going to take a long time to bear fruit. And has the added problem of the FPTP structure not giving them a majority in those kinds of seats right now.
Or they try and triangulate and get the northern WWC back on board. But to do that they can’t just go for the platitudes anymore. Someone is going to have to compromise, somewhere - on immigration, in Europe, on support for small businesses and people who want to work and see the benefits of doing so on themselves and their communities. There’s no reason why they can’t do both, but they need to speak a language other than that of north London and look to really understand these voters better.
We need a solid opposition, not just a SWP protest movement
I'm not even convinced the lack of "wokeness" would really put people off. The membership might narrow but who cares about that?
We're in a post Brexit world now, the reality is FOM is going away anyway, so these Southern voters are going to accept that.
I think Labour has got very caught up in the People's Vote movement and now this has gone away too, these people will vote on other issues.
I genuinely think the metropolitan, Southern base is much less of a problem than people think. Even Corbyn had lost popularity with them.
https://news.sky.com/story/next-labour-leader-cant-be-corbyn-without-a-beard-former-mp-caroline-flint-warns-11887125
Now, I know Labour promised to nationalise the buses too - but it really was an afterthought behind trains, which is something of an obsession - even though the problems with the rail network are mostly down to capacity - something that will have to be dealt with over a generation, not a parliament. Buses on the otherhand, you could do wonders with a sum that would've been a fair amount, but hardly huge in comparison to other mammoth pledges.
If they hadn't been on the ballot paper in 2019, I wonder how different the map might look? If the over-riding driver to votes in the UK is usually the anti-Tories, then splitting the anti-Tories is what will drive your Eternal Party of Government meme.
I'm just thinking outside the box here. LibDems reach an agreement with Labour: you stand aside for us in locals, we will stand aside for you in generals.
The NEC is not happy, this is good for the moderates
So, yes I am.
However, the next leader of the Labour party will need to be someone who is prepared to embrace Brexit and not just as some token either: but really gets why they lost the working class (northern) vote. No patronising. Someone who gets it.
He was the puppeteer behind many of the disastrous strategic decisions. He was not prepared to compromise one inch on Brexit and had an unwavering view that the Lib Dems did not have to stand down in labour held seats.
Maybe some reality can now come back to the party although Ed Davey is another old school lib dem who has major narcissistic tendencies.
Swinson spent the election courting Tories - when the natural Lib Dem base of the 2000s was really people at the same level as Blair, or even more to the left in some cases. The Lib Dem party of today is not courting the same voters as Labour.
Moran might move the party back to the left again, it's hard to see.
The Lib Dems and Labour should definitely do some kind of unofficial pact though.
ETA she also ran a very idiosyncratic campaign including endorsements from Tories like Aaron Bell, whoever he is.