Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most. Academic intelligence is not perfectly correlated with judgement, but it is an important pre-requisite.
I met Boris a couple of times (briefly) professionally when he was Mayor of London and he has a mind like a bacon-slicer. It really comes across when he is interested in soemthing. His big disadvantage in governing is a total disinterest in policy detail when he isn't, but that's not a fatal one, as Reagan showed.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
So your theory is that he was telling a blatant lie about something that was not only a matter of public record, but was the central political issue at the time - so that every person with even the most passing interest in politics would know he was lying?
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
I have just joined the Labour Party. Time to kick the Corbynites out.
Good luck. The country needs an electable opposition.
If my current MP stands again AND the new Labour leader is not a Corbyn clone then I will not vote for him. I’m not saying I will vote Labour, that might be a step too far for me, but with Brexit out of the way I can easily see myself voting Lib Dem.
Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most. Academic intelligence is not perfectly correlated with judgement, but it is an important pre-requisite.
I met Boris a couple of times (briefly) professionally when he was Mayor of London and he has a mind like a bacon-slicer. It really comes across when he is interested in soemthing. His big disadvantage in governing is a total disinterest in policy detail when he isn't, but that's not a fatal one, as Reagan showed.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
So your theory is that he was telling a blatant lie about something that was not only a matter of public record, but was the central political issue at the time - so that every person with even the most passing interest in politics would know he was lying?
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
He has got away with it so far, so yes. Johnson is a refinement of Lincoln's dictum. He can fool enough of the population enough of the time.
Thank you Cyclefree for the header. It must be excellent because I agree with every word. 😃
I would be fascinated to see a header from someone on the lessons that the Tories need to learn. One of the hardest things to do is to learn from mistakes made if you got what you wanted.
Labour needs to think about what matters to the average family living in one of the seats we've just lost. Both parents working, 2 kids at the local school, one wants to go to Uni, the other would rather get an apprenticeship. Live in a nice house they own with a mortgage. Elderly grandparents, not in the best of health.
Here's a couple of tips - NHS, education, economy, social care. It's basic stuff.
Labour has been fixated on the top 10% and the bottom 10%. Time to think about the other 80%.
Indeed.
Talking about rough sleepers or food banks or zero hour contracts is irrelevant to most people.
The next Labour leader needs to read Gould's The Unfinished Revolution. Time to learn again.
In the article you make reference to Anthony Broxton's "Tides of History". Anthony occasionally writes PB articles and his blog and twitter is good: interested PB readers can find them here:
Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most. Academic intelligence is not perfectly correlated with judgement, but it is an important pre-requisite.
I met Boris a couple of times (briefly) professionally when he was Mayor of London and he has a mind like a bacon-slicer. It really comes across when he is interested in soemthing. His big disadvantage in governing is a total disinterest in policy detail when he isn't, but that's not a fatal one, as Reagan showed.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Or he was just lying 🤥. Intelligent is not the same as moral.
Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most. Academic intelligence is not perfectly correlated with judgement, but it is an important pre-requisite.
I met Boris a couple of times (briefly) professionally when he was Mayor of London and he has a mind like a bacon-slicer. It really comes across when he is interested in soemthing. His big disadvantage in governing is a total disinterest in policy detail when he isn't, but that's not a fatal one, as Reagan showed.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
So your theory is that he was telling a blatant lie about something that was not only a matter of public record, but was the central political issue at the time - so that every person with even the most passing interest in politics would know he was lying?
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
Do you really think that when people get away with doing stupid things they start to appear clever to you?
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Harris has been reporting, off and on, from the Red Wall front line for a couple of years. Labour didn't listen.
My God that is a bleak video though, I watched it at the time and it haunted me, those poor lost kids. What a fucking country, where do you even start? Harris is the outstanding journalist of his (my) generation.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
It's not that Labour's economic policy in isolation was totally mad, I think 2017 got the balance reasonably right (and you can see that in the Tories moving to the left economically) but 2019 went far too far.
Strip away the WASPI, broadband, etc. rubbish and stick with a couple of pragmatic things like railways and investing in the NHS and Labour would have walked it with a sane leader.
I am not totally convinced nationalization of lots of industries is quite as popular as it is perceived. I know polling says it is, but when offered it as GE, the public don't seem to go for it.
In 2017 they only promised railways didn't they?
I am saying they take the railways back into public ownership - and that's it.
They can argue that on pragmatic grounds, without being seen as anti-business. That policy was fine, it just came in the baggage of all the other rubbish.
Do you remember British Rail? The railways now carry many more passengers than BR ever did, it was at the beck and call of the unions even more so than now. The problem is that if nationalized it won’t attract the management it needs or make the correct investment decisions. What is wrong is that the privatization model is ill thought out that’s what needs addressing.
If Labour wants to propose a better solution again on pragmatic grounds I am all for it. But I do think the railways can be sold on pragmatic grounds: “the French and the Germans run our railways why can’t we”.
Actually the French and Germans can't run their railways, it's as bad as it is here. Especially on commuter rail. The subsidy there is much higher than it is here as well.
There is a big discussion to be has about how we can improve rail services, nationalisation is not some kind of silver bullet, but it should be part of the discussion, yes.
my brother works in Germany and says Deutsche Bahn is a basket case. He cant rely on a single train and has to start out an hour earlier just to guarantee reaching his destination on time.
Lol..
BERLIN (AP) - Climate activist Greta Thunberg and Germany's national railway company created a tweetstorm Sunday after she posted a photo of herself sitting on the floor of a train surrounded by lots of bags. The image has drawn plenty of comment online about the performance of German railways
Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most. Academic intelligence is not perfectly correlated with judgement, but it is an important pre-requisite.
I met Boris a couple of times (briefly) professionally when he was Mayor of London and he has a mind like a bacon-slicer. It really comes across when he is interested in soemthing. His big disadvantage in governing is a total disinterest in policy detail when he isn't, but that's not a fatal one, as Reagan showed.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
So your theory is that he was telling a blatant lie about something that was not only a matter of public record, but was the central political issue at the time - so that every person with even the most passing interest in politics would know he was lying?
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
Do you really think that when people get away with doing stupid things they start to appear clever to you?
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Bloody hell. I know this site is famous for crap analogies, but really...
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
Whoever the Labour leader is, they need to come out against Scottish Independence from day 1.
In the article you make reference to Anthony Broxton's "Tides of History". Anthony occasionally writes PB articles and his blog and twitter is good: interested PB readers can find them here:
Harris has been reporting, off and on, from the Red Wall front line for a couple of years. Labour didn't listen.
My God that is a bleak video though, I watched it at the time and it haunted me, those poor lost kids. What a fucking country, where do you even start? Harris is the outstanding journalist of his (my) generation.
Agree Harris is an excellent journalist. A proper adult among shouty students.
Wigan, though, has a lot to recommend it. In Greater Manchester terms it's doing ok. Itwnot Oldham, for one thing.
Ged Killen will never get 18000+ votes ever again, what's the point of voting for a left of centre anti-independence party when it's not against independence.
Most of them will go to the LD and a few to the Conservatives.
Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most.
Up to a point Lord Copper - he studied Literae humaniores or 'Greats' - like Denis Healey, also a Balliol man, and probably less harmful than PPE.
Sorry you are right. I mixed his course up with Cameron's. Blame it on jetlag and thanks for the correction
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They need to move very rapidly out of the denial phase, Lisa Nandy's comments today were interesting. She seems one of the brighter young MPs - hope she has a tilt at the leadership. Interesting that Keir Starmer is keeping his powder dry.
Whoever gets the leadership needs to ensure that they have clean hands over anti-semitism i.e. not a denier, or an enabler - the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming express train of the EHRC report.
It's not that Labour's economic policy in isolation was totally mad, I think 2017 got the balance reasonably right (and you can see that in the Tories moving to the left economically) but 2019 went far too far.
Strip away the WASPI, broadband, etc. rubbish and stick with a couple of pragmatic things like railways and investing in the NHS and Labour would have walked it with a sane leader.
The problem is that Corbyn arguing for some moderate policies didn't make them look moderate. If a leader like Starmer or Nandy had argued for railway nationalisation when the franchises expire, nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Labour needs pragmatic policy, not ideological policy. They also need a patriotic leader and somebody out of London.
It's Dan Jarvis, Lisa Nandy or at a stretch perhaps Stephen Kinnock. They can all work and build sensible cabinets that can argue for these policies.
They only have to look less crap than Johnson, which should be easy because he's a buffoon (and most Labour voters who went to him I think did so because he just looked less crap than Corbyn) and they need to look like a sensible, pragmatic alternative Government and they will have a good chance at the very least, making progress in 2024.
Or they can take the RLB and double down with Momentum and ideological policies and spend 10 more years in opposition.
Those of us that actually want the Tories out and a moderate, pragmatic Labour Government, really need to join the party and vote against the Corbynite.
Having voted LD this time we plan to rejoin to vote for the next leader. If it turns out to be another loser from the Momentum stables then we will be resigning and off for good and I suspect we will not be alone.
Most non-Labour voters should hope for the moderates to regain control of the party. In 5 years time after 14 years of the Tories Labour could well win whoever is in charge. Bear in mind that even Corbyn got within 2% only 2 years ago.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
So your theory is that he was telling a blatant lie about something that was not only a matter of public record, but was the central political issue at the time - so that every person with even the most passing interest in politics would know he was lying?
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
Do you really think that when people get away with doing stupid things they start to appear clever to you?
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Bloody hell. I know this site is famous for crap analogies, but really...
It seems an entirely fair analogy, if the idea is that Johnson told a stupid, blatant lie, that everyone would know was a lie.
Just think about it.
Someone really astute would have come up with a clever lie, which many people wouldn't have realised was a lie, and which would have given the impression that this was a great deal for everyone and it was just unfortunate that for their domestic historical political reasons the DUP couldn't stretch as far as supporting it.
A mediocre politician would have waffled, avoided the question and confused the issue. Most of them can almost do that in their sleep.
Johnson just told a stupid blatant lie that fooled no one.
But you think that must have been the astute thing to do because he "got away with it."
The popularity argument is a strong one. Its incredibly arrogant to declare they won the policy argument because some of what they promised is popular. Its declaring they didnt really lose.
Notably some complain about smears and attacks - that is, even if it is not a smear they blame it.
Second do not underestimate Boris, he may act like a buffoon but behind him are some seriously smart people and more importantly they play to win, sometime too aggressively. 3 months ago all the so called intelligent commentators thought Boris was a busted flush, losing in Parliament, being accused of dodgy prorogation's, 21 rebels being sacked (terrible move apparently) and being accused of being a far right nationalist. Now with a splash of Cummings he is master of his own party, the Government of his choice and Country broadly behind him if a little sceptical. The last thing the Labour party should do is just dis him as a buffon.
Even you are underestimating Boris. He won a scholarship to Eton and studied PPE at Balliol, one of Oxford's most intellectually rigorous colleges, if not the most. Academic intelligence is not perfectly correlated with judgement, but it is an important pre-requisite.
I met Boris a couple of times (briefly) professionally when he was Mayor of London and he has a mind like a bacon-slicer. It really comes across when he is interested in soemthing. His big disadvantage in governing is a total disinterest in policy detail when he isn't, but that's not a fatal one, as Reagan showed.
A minor point, he studied Classics not PPE. To be honest I don't think anybody doubts Johnson is clever. It's just that he's also a compulsive liar, lazy and lacking in any real convictions. I have also met him and found him clever, witty and charming, but also incoherent and weirdly needy. The most interesting thing about him is that he is playing a character called "Boris" (not his actual name), the tousled hair and the ruffled clothes are all part of the schtick. It's an act of deflection to distract from the absence of substance. I also think that by over-emphasising his poshness by playing an exaggerated Berty Wooster character it somehow deflects from it, a bit like how Jimmy Saville dressed like a paedophile so that nobody suspected him of actually being one. The key question is whether it is Johnson or Cummings who is really in charge. We will find out soon enough, I suppose.
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 42% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 24% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
The baggage really was Corbyn's big problem from the start.
Not in 2017 it wasn't.
And I don't find the metaphor helpful anyway. Strip away the baggage and what is left of Corbyn? You can't be a Marxist anti westerner all your life without generating a lot of evidence of Marxist anti western behaviour.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
The baggage really was Corbyn's big problem from the start.
Not in 2017 it wasn't.
And I don't find the metaphor helpful anyway. Strip away the baggage and what is left of Corbyn? You can't be a Marxist anti westerner all your life without generating a lot of evidence of Marxist anti western behaviour.
2019 just shows more and more that Labour made in progress in spite of Corbyn not because of him. My honest assessment in hindsight is that people didn't hate Corbyn enough in 2017 to vote against him but this time they did.
First, FPT: Policy announcment number one from Boris outside of Brexit to win over non metropolitan notherners. Take the £13.4 billion overseas budget. Strip out everything that doesnt serve a wider strategic/economic/diplomatic aim and divert the rest of it to social care, education etc.
One advantage of Boris having a big majority is he can make really bold changes without the worry of what the media backlash will be. But with any new government you need to make those changes in the first couple of years.
You have a hundred days to whatever you want to do....
Governments need to front-end-load their programmes with things that might be initially unpopular or controversial. You probably have a year or two, after 5 years hopefully they will be bearing fruit
Wise words but I suspect that more than anything Johnson wants to be loved so won't take any unpopular decisions. He's no Thatcher and I doubt he has seriously thought about what he will do during the next 5 years
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 40% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 25% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
The voters that still remain in Labour.
If you are in favour of independence you already vote for the SNP.
But if you are against independence you either vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour depending on your ideology.
So Labour risks losing all the left anti-independence vote, that 19% will be redistributed to the Liberals and some few to the Conservatives.
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 42% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 24% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
I should add. Labour lost more votes this year. Almost all of them will have gone to the SNP.
Harris has been reporting, off and on, from the Red Wall front line for a couple of years. Labour didn't listen.
My God that is a bleak video though, I watched it at the time and it haunted me, those poor lost kids. What a fucking country, where do you even start? Harris is the outstanding journalist of his (my) generation.
Agree Harris is an excellent journalist. A proper adult among shouty students.
Wigan, though, has a lot to recommend it. In Greater Manchester terms it's doing ok. Itwnot Oldham, for one thing.
True.
Some of the Greater Manchester towns e.g. Bury are doing better than others e.g. Rochdale. However, it is jarring to go into the city centre from the towns and see the complete rebuild since 1996. Some councils got regeneration right, and some blew it very badly.
Rochdale and Oldham are the starkest examples of this, where the councils have pissed money up the wall on numerous failed town centre regenerations, whilst everyone got in their cars and drove to the Trafford Centre.
Amazed Rochdale didn't fall to the Tories as well, Tony Lloyd has a large personal vote though. Labour were down double digits. Continuity Corbyn isn't going to cut it.
It's not that Labour's economic policy in isolation was totally mad, I think 2017 got the balance reasonably right (and you can see that in the Tories moving to the left economically) but 2019 went far too far.
Strip away the WASPI, broadband, etc. rubbish and stick with a couple of pragmatic things like railways and investing in the NHS and Labour would have walked it with a sane leader.
I am not totally convinced nationalization of lots of industries is quite as popular as it is perceived. I know polling says it is, but when offered it as GE, the public don't seem to go for it.
In 2017 they only promised railways didn't they?
I am saying they take the railways back into public ownership - and that's it.
They can argue that on pragmatic grounds, without being seen as anti-business. That policy was fine, it just came in the baggage of all the other rubbish.
Do you remember British Rail? The railways now carry many more passengers than BR ever did, it was at the beck and call of the unions even more so than now. The problem is that if nationalized it won’t attract the management it needs or make the correct investment decisions. What is wrong is that the privatization model is ill thought out that’s what needs addressing.
Spot on, better management & regulation is the way forward.
Some of us are old enough to remember the pre-privatization World War 2 rolling stock, the trains that never ran on time in between the numerous ASLEF strikes,not to mention the expensive tickets.
It really says something when the flagship British Rail service was known by its users as 'Inter Shitty'
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
But the Scots don't want independence or another independence referendum.
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
Why are people so attached to Labour as if it were a football team they support? After each electoral disaster with a leader they think is useless, we hear the same old same old. Let it die, let it go.
It doesn't mean a century of Tory rule, even if many "Labour supporters" are actually Tory voters now. It probably is the time to get behind some kind of TIG/ChangeUK organisation and let unpopular Corbyn and the SWP have the corpse; there are 5 years to go until next GE, so its a better time to restart than the ham fisted attempts to set up a new organisation whilst trying to overturn a democratic vote
All that would make sense if we didn't have FPTP. We have realistically only had a choice of 2 parties for a century.
The system makes it almost impossible for an En Marche, 5 Star, Podemos movement to succeed here.
Anyone who doesn't want the Tories is ultimately going to have to get behind Labour. That is the reality and sooner or later they will. Guys like you just need to hope Momentum isn't still at the helm when they do.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
So your theory is that he was telling a blatant lie about something that was not only a matter of public record, but was the central political issue at the time - so that every person with even the most passing interest in politics would know he was lying?
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
Do you really think that when people get away with doing stupid things they start to appear clever to you?
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Bloody hell. I know this site is famous for crap analogies, but really...
It seems an entirely fair analogy, if the idea is that Johnson told a stupid, blatant lie, that everyone would know was a lie.
Just think about it.
Someone really astute would have come up with a clever lie, which many people wouldn't have realised was a lie, and which would have given the impression that this was a great deal for everyone and it was just unfortunate that for their domestic historical political reasons the DUP couldn't stretch as far as supporting it.
A mediocre politician would have waffled, avoided the question and confused the issue. Most of them can almost do that in their sleep.
Johnson just told a stupid blatant lie that fooled no one.
But you think that must have been the astute thing to do because he "got away with it."
If I wanted to demonstrate someone was stupid I'd be looking for evidence along the lines of "he did this stupid thing and fell flat on his arse LOL as anyone could have foreseen", not "he did this stupid thing and got the best possible outcome but that must have been completely by chance because we all know how stupid he is." Argument B looks kinda circular.
Not that I expect everyone who liked Corbyn and the manifesto to repudiate him how, but the comments about him being the best politician ever and nominating him for sainthood practically are just strange after the worst defeat in 80 years. What could shake that worship?
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 40% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 25% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
The voters that still remain in Labour.
If you are in favour of independence you already vote for the SNP.
But if you are against independence you either vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour depending on your ideology.
So Labour risks losing all the left anti-independence vote, that 19% will be redistributed to the Liberals and some few to the Conservatives.
Actually that's not the case. Ruth Davidson's success in 2017 was largely due to SNP switchers. As these voted SNP after the independence referendum they are unlikely to be rabid unionists. The Tory natural ceiling is about 25%, while SNP/nationalists have a bedrock of maybe 40%. The rest is fluid.
So brexit derangement syndrome has morphed into Boris derangement syndrome. I predict it's going to be a tough 5 years for some people.
Boris Derangement Syndrome is why Remain ultimately lost. Too many people convinced themselves he was a hardcore No Dealer and didn’t know how to respond when he threw the DUP under the bus and did a deal.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
We were all given assurances by the then leader of the SNP that it was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 and we accepted his word. End of.
So if he's got a mind like a bacon-slicer, how did he come to be so confused as to think the DUP had backed his deal?
It was just about the most crucial political issue of the moment, and apparently he didn't have a clue.
Neurological degeneration since you met him, or what?
Boris' issue there is his total lack of honesty, not his lack of intelligence. He betrayed his commitments to the DUP so it's easier to pretend they agree with him rather than admit he sold them down the river.
Fair enough as a plea that he's not actually suffering from dementia - but as evidence of razor-sharp intelligence ... ?
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
Do you really think that when people get away with doing stupid things they start to appear clever to you?
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Bloody hell. I know this site is famous for crap analogies, but really...
It seems an entirely fair analogy, if the idea is that Johnson told a stupid, blatant lie, that everyone would know was a lie.
Just think about it.
Someone really astute would have come up with a clever lie, which many people wouldn't have realised was a lie, and which would have given the impression that this was a great deal for everyone and it was just unfortunate that for their domestic historical political reasons the DUP couldn't stretch as far as supporting it.
A mediocre politician would have waffled, avoided the question and confused the issue. Most of them can almost do that in their sleep.
Johnson just told a stupid blatant lie that fooled no one.
But you think that must have been the astute thing to do because he "got away with it."
It's a good point and while speculating what's in somebody's mind is always difficult, I can think of three explanations:
- he had a "brain fart" , as even the cleverest do occasionally, especially when tired and running on adrenalin - he knew that most British people don't really care about Northern Ireland, as long as they're not blowing each other up - he was trying to bounce the DUP leadership on board.
On balance, I favour the first explanation. But I generally prefer pick-up rather than conspiracy. I suppose we'll never know.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
But the Scots don't want independence or another independence referendum.
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
But the Scots don't want independence or another independence referendum.
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
And the majority of the country doesn't want Boris's Brexit deal.
Harris has been reporting, off and on, from the Red Wall front line for a couple of years. Labour didn't listen.
My God that is a bleak video though, I watched it at the time and it haunted me, those poor lost kids. What a fucking country, where do you even start? Harris is the outstanding journalist of his (my) generation.
Agree Harris is an excellent journalist. A proper adult among shouty students.
Wigan, though, has a lot to recommend it. In Greater Manchester terms it's doing ok. Itwnot Oldham, for one thing.
True.
Some of the Greater Manchester towns e.g. Bury are doing better than others e.g. Rochdale. However, it is jarring to go into the city centre from the towns and see the complete rebuild since 1996. Some councils got regeneration right, and some blew it very badly.
Rochdale and Oldham are the starkest examples of this, where the councils have pissed money up the wall on numerous failed town centre regenerations, whilst everyone got in their cars and drove to the Trafford Centre.
Amazed Rochdale didn't fall to the Tories as well, Tony Lloyd has a large personal vote though. Labour were down double digits. Continuity Corbyn isn't going to cut it.
Northern Manchester towns are usually a barometer in the North.
Demographically and economically they are mostly on the average for the region, that's why they usually have marginals.
Seeing that he could do that *and get away with it* looks pretty astute to me.
Do you really think that when people get away with doing stupid things they start to appear clever to you?
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Bloody hell. I know this site is famous for crap analogies, but really...
It seems an entirely fair analogy, if the idea is that Johnson told a stupid, blatant lie, that everyone would know was a lie.
Just think about it.
Someone really astute would have come up with a clever lie, which many people wouldn't have realised was a lie, and which would have given the impression that this was a great deal for everyone and it was just unfortunate that for their domestic historical political reasons the DUP couldn't stretch as far as supporting it.
A mediocre politician would have waffled, avoided the question and confused the issue. Most of them can almost do that in their sleep.
Johnson just told a stupid blatant lie that fooled no one.
But you think that must have been the astute thing to do because he "got away with it."
That presupposes people care whether Johnson lies or not. It bothers me but other people either find him charming or are signed up.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
But the Scots don't want independence or another independence referendum.
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
And the majority of the country doesn't want Boris's Brexit deal.
But Leave did win the Referendum. And majorities still don't want a Second EU referendum.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
But the Scots don't want independence or another independence referendum.
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
You could say the same about Brexit and the Conservative Party...
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 40% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 25% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
The voters that still remain in Labour.
If you are in favour of independence you already vote for the SNP.
But if you are against independence you either vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour depending on your ideology.
So Labour risks losing all the left anti-independence vote, that 19% will be redistributed to the Liberals and some few to the Conservatives.
Actually that's not the case. Ruth Davidson's success in 2017 was largely due to SNP switchers. As these voted SNP after the independence referendum they are unlikely to be rabid unionists. The Tory natural ceiling is about 25%, while SNP/nationalists have a bedrock of maybe 40%. The rest is fluid.
Wut. Angus is the only seat where you can see evidence of SNP to Con switching in any numbers.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
Whoever the Labour leader is, they need to come out against Scottish Independence from day 1.
The only tiny hope Labour Scotland have is if they get fully behind second Indyref, otherwise it is down the drain completely. They are useless.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
Whoever the Labour leader is, they need to come out against Scottish Independence from day 1.
The only tiny hope Labour Scotland have is if they get fully behind second Indyref, otherwise it is down the drain completely. They are useless.
Scottish Labour really needs to stop being run as a part of English Labour. It's been a disaster.
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 40% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 25% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
The voters that still remain in Labour.
If you are in favour of independence you already vote for the SNP.
But if you are against independence you either vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour depending on your ideology.
So Labour risks losing all the left anti-independence vote, that 19% will be redistributed to the Liberals and some few to the Conservatives.
Actually that's not the case. Ruth Davidson's success in 2017 was largely due to SNP switchers. As these voted SNP after the independence referendum they are unlikely to be rabid unionists. The Tory natural ceiling is about 25%, while SNP/nationalists have a bedrock of maybe 40%. The rest is fluid.
The SNP has a small core of true believers, an outer core of opportunists, and outer layers of disgruntled ex-Labour, ex-Conservative and ex-Liberals.
Those outer layers are moving in and out of the SNP orbit depending on the national state of the parties.
If all 3 parties max out nationally at the same election then the SNP should go down to around 35%. But if the SNP loses power it will lose it's opportunists too.
The SNP's power is based on the budget it controlls.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
We were all given assurances by the then leader of the SNP that it was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 and we accepted his word. End of.
The days of government by the personal assurances of a Big Man are several hundred years behind us. Democracy has supplanted them.
Cf the "did Magna Carta die in vain" democraceee fanboys dipping into government by autocratic fiat when they need Cameron's dickheaded "we will enact what you decide" to convert the referendum into a mandatory one.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
IN truth Labour is stuffed in Scotland until independence stops being an issue, either because we are independent or people decide the UK is for them.
They decided five years ago.
Holding a country against its will is not Unionism, it is Imperialism. It is not a sustainable position to deny a further Indyref, if that is what Scottish people want. The only question is timing.
But the Scots don't want independence or another independence referendum.
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
CUCKOO, a deluded halfwitted viewpoint from inside the M25
The question they are debating is whether the Scottish Parliament or Boris Johnson should decide whether there is another referendum. Throwing their lot in with Boris isn't necessarily to Scottish Labour's advantage. This another way of saying the Unionist Alliance is dead. Which is why I think independence will carry if another referendum goes ahead.
But their voters don't want another scottish referendum and they dont want scottish independence, why should they follow them instead of voting for someone else ?
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
Which voters? Labour had 40% of the Scottish vote in the 2010 GE and 25% in 2015. What happened between those two elections?
The voters that still remain in Labour.
If you are in favour of independence you already vote for the SNP.
But if you are against independence you either vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour depending on your ideology.
So Labour risks losing all the left anti-independence vote, that 19% will be redistributed to the Liberals and some few to the Conservatives.
Actually that's not the case. Ruth Davidson's success in 2017 was largely due to SNP switchers. As these voted SNP after the independence referendum they are unlikely to be rabid unionists. The Tory natural ceiling is about 25%, while SNP/nationalists have a bedrock of maybe 40%. The rest is fluid.
Wut. Angus is the only seat where you can see evidence of SNP to Con switching in any numbers.
Edit: oh, do you mean AN-to-Lab switchers?
In net swing terms in most of the 2017 Tory seats there was a fall in the SNP vote and an increase in the Tory one. There was also some tactical voting amongst the Unionist parties but the most telling shift was SNP -> Conservative, eg Aberdeen South:
Conservative 42.1% +19.3 SNP 31.5% -10.2 Labour 20.6% -6.2 Liberal Democrats 5.8% +1.2
Majority 4,752 10.6 n/a Turnout 44,556 68.6 -2.7 Conservative gain from SNP Swing +14.8
"The one thing which all good leaders have is courage."
I'm not sure I agree. Blair was fundamentally a coward, except over Iraq. He spent his whole time as leader in exaggerated fear of the reactions of the Mail and the Sun. Even the Iraq war, justified or not, was essentially him cowering to the Americans to beat up a much weaker country.
The thing which all successful leaders need is judgement. If they don't have that, luck will substitute. Blair had the latter in abundance. His judgement was patchy. The last politician we had with both luck and judgement was ousted almost thirty years ago when both failed her.
They need both, I agree.
I was mainly thinking about Kinnock who did have the balls to tell his party and Militant some home truths. Blair did have some courage in his early days as leader, less so as PM, I agree.
That Kinnock speech remains for me one of the outstanding political moments. Labour badly needs someone like him now. But I don't see who that might be.
There is a market in Scotland for a non-Conservarive unionist party, if Labour water their message on Scottish Independence the obvious gainer will be the LD.
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
Whoever the Labour leader is, they need to come out against Scottish Independence from day 1.
The only tiny hope Labour Scotland have is if they get fully behind second Indyref, otherwise it is down the drain completely. They are useless.
Scottish Labour really needs to stop being run as a part of English Labour. It's been a disaster.
I have the reverse view. Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour did a really bad job when in charge of their local authorities.
Mr. G, it was done knowing full well that: a) a referendum on EU membership was possible b) voting to leave the UK also entailed leaving the EU
I do have more sympathy with the argument that an SNP majority in Holyrood (NB Holyrood, not Westminster) is cause for a fresh referendum. Unfortunately, that's precluded by the SNP promise not to hold another referendum for a generation...
"The one thing which all good leaders have is courage."
I'm not sure I agree. Blair was fundamentally a coward, except over Iraq. He spent his whole time as leader in exaggerated fear of the reactions of the Mail and the Sun. Even the Iraq war, justified or not, was essentially him cowering to the Americans to beat up a much weaker country.
The thing which all successful leaders need is judgement. If they don't have that, luck will substitute. Blair had the latter in abundance. His judgement was patchy. The last politician we had with both luck and judgement was ousted almost thirty years ago when both failed her.
They need both, I agree.
I was mainly thinking about Kinnock who did have the balls to tell his party and Militant some home truths. Blair did have some courage in his early days as leader, less so as PM, I agree.
That Kinnock speech remains for me one of the outstanding political moments. Labour badly needs someone like him now. But I don't see who that might be.
I could see either Phillips or Rayner doing a similar speech. It needs doing soon, so there can be a thorough clean out before a GE.
I fear though that the infection is too widespread.
Thank you Cyclefree for the header. It must be excellent because I agree with every word. 😃
I would be fascinated to see a header from someone on the lessons that the Tories need to learn. One of the hardest things to do is to learn from mistakes made if you got what you wanted.
The baggage really was Corbyn's big problem from the start.
Not in 2017 it wasn't.
And I don't find the metaphor helpful anyway. Strip away the baggage and what is left of Corbyn? You can't be a Marxist anti westerner all your life without generating a lot of evidence of Marxist anti western behaviour.
2019 just shows more and more that Labour made in progress in spite of Corbyn not because of him. My honest assessment in hindsight is that people didn't hate Corbyn enough in 2017 to vote against him but this time they did.
In 2017 they gave him the benefit of the doubt. This year their doubts were resolved.
"The one thing which all good leaders have is courage."
I'm not sure I agree. Blair was fundamentally a coward, except over Iraq. He spent his whole time as leader in exaggerated fear of the reactions of the Mail and the Sun. Even the Iraq war, justified or not, was essentially him cowering to the Americans to beat up a much weaker country.
The thing which all successful leaders need is judgement. If they don't have that, luck will substitute. Blair had the latter in abundance. His judgement was patchy. The last politician we had with both luck and judgement was ousted almost thirty years ago when both failed her.
They need both, I agree.
I was mainly thinking about Kinnock who did have the balls to tell his party and Militant some home truths. Blair did have some courage in his early days as leader, less so as PM, I agree.
That Kinnock speech remains for me one of the outstanding political moments. Labour badly needs someone like him now. But I don't see who that might be.
I could see either Phillips or Rayner doing a similar speech. It needs doing soon, so there can be a thorough clean out before a GE.
I fear though that the infection is too widespread.
Don’t worry, As a new member I’m going to go to my local Labour Party meetings and tell them some home truths myself!
That's the same Andrew Adonis who has spent the last few years driving himself and everyone else up the wall because he doesn't like what the people say.
Just had time to read your thread Cyclefree and as ever you are spot on and thank you
To those who want to see a sane labour party emerge from this wreckage, and I really do, they have to find a way of isolating and destroying momentum.
Many are putting forward their ideal candidates but none of them will stand a chance as long as RLB is the heir apparent backed by the tens of thousands momentum members
I do not see another labour government this decade and even beyond
This must be an opportunity for the Lib Dems to dust themselves off and step into the ground so comprehensively vacated by labour
Nandy seems to actually get it - and she seems articulate and intelligent.
Not bad. There needs to be a long and challenging leadership contest so people’s flaws can be exposed beforehand, not afterwards.
She only gets it in part. They don’t want radical change - if that means reheated Marxist rubbish. What they want is change for the better: the tools and conditions to help them make a good life for themselves.
That's the same Andrew Adonis who has spent the last few years driving himself and everyone else up the wall because he doesn't like what the people say.
Adonis makes good points but for goodness sake, he was one of the people behind Labour's massive push to Remain.
"The one thing which all good leaders have is courage."
I'm not sure I agree. Blair was fundamentally a coward, except over Iraq. He spent his whole time as leader in exaggerated fear of the reactions of the Mail and the Sun. Even the Iraq war, justified or not, was essentially him cowering to the Americans to beat up a much weaker country.
The thing which all successful leaders need is judgement. If they don't have that, luck will substitute. Blair had the latter in abundance. His judgement was patchy. The last politician we had with both luck and judgement was ousted almost thirty years ago when both failed her.
They need both, I agree.
I was mainly thinking about Kinnock who did have the balls to tell his party and Militant some home truths. Blair did have some courage in his early days as leader, less so as PM, I agree.
That Kinnock speech remains for me one of the outstanding political moments. Labour badly needs someone like him now. But I don't see who that might be.
I could see either Phillips or Rayner doing a similar speech. It needs doing soon, so there can be a thorough clean out before a GE.
I fear though that the infection is too widespread.
Don’t worry, As a new member I’m going to go to my local Labour Party meetings and tell them some home truths myself!
Nandy seems to actually get it - and she seems articulate and intelligent.
If she'd been vocal once the election was called she'd now have some credibility. However, she spent the last 5 weeks to have Jeremy Corbyn elected as PM and would have supported him in the H/C had he won. The same applies to all the rest of them - except those who stood up to be counted. Even now her words are pretty worthless as there is precious little chance the members would vote her in. The same applies to Jess Philips who is even more massively over-rated.
"The one thing which all good leaders have is courage."
I'm not sure I agree. Blair was fundamentally a coward, except over Iraq. He spent his whole time as leader in exaggerated fear of the reactions of the Mail and the Sun. Even the Iraq war, justified or not, was essentially him cowering to the Americans to beat up a much weaker country.
The thing which all successful leaders need is judgement. If they don't have that, luck will substitute. Blair had the latter in abundance. His judgement was patchy. The last politician we had with both luck and judgement was ousted almost thirty years ago when both failed her.
They need both, I agree.
I was mainly thinking about Kinnock who did have the balls to tell his party and Militant some home truths. Blair did have some courage in his early days as leader, less so as PM, I agree.
That Kinnock speech remains for me one of the outstanding political moments. Labour badly needs someone like him now. But I don't see who that might be.
I could see either Phillips or Rayner doing a similar speech. It needs doing soon, so there can be a thorough clean out before a GE.
I fear though that the infection is too widespread.
Comments
https://novaramedia.com/2019/12/10/in-the-norths-leave-voting-seats-disillusionment-is-labours-biggest-enemy/
If my current MP stands again AND the new Labour leader is not a Corbyn clone then I will not vote for him. I’m not saying I will vote Labour, that might be a step too far for me, but with Brexit out of the way I can easily see myself voting Lib Dem.
Feel free to remind me of this in ‘23 or ‘24.
I would be fascinated to see a header from someone on the lessons that the Tories need to learn. One of the hardest things to do is to learn from mistakes made if you got what you wanted.
It's always a choice between the alternatives.
Labour's choice was not one the electorate could stomach.
https://twitter.com/MrTCHarris/status/1206225130764066827
In the article you make reference to Anthony Broxton's "Tides of History". Anthony occasionally writes PB articles and his blog and twitter is good: interested PB readers can find them here:
https://tidesofhistory.wordpress.com/
https://twitter.com/labour_history
I mean, if someone runs recklessly into the road in front a fast-moving vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't hit them, do you really conclude that it was an "astute" thing to do?
Labour still got around 19% in Scotland, they could fall a lot further if they abandon unionism.
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1206208945511157761?s=20
Wigan, though, has a lot to recommend it. In Greater Manchester terms it's doing ok. Itwnot Oldham, for one thing.
Most of them will go to the LD and a few to the Conservatives.
It's like saying that a pro-european pro-second referendum Labour had a chance of winning in Sedgefield.
They need to move very rapidly out of the denial phase, Lisa Nandy's comments today were interesting. She seems one of the brighter young MPs - hope she has a tilt at the leadership. Interesting that Keir Starmer is keeping his powder dry.
Whoever gets the leadership needs to ensure that they have clean hands over anti-semitism i.e. not a denier, or an enabler - the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming express train of the EHRC report.
Most non-Labour voters should hope for the moderates to regain control of the party. In 5 years time after 14 years of the Tories Labour could well win whoever is in charge. Bear in mind that even Corbyn got within 2% only 2 years ago.
Just think about it.
Someone really astute would have come up with a clever lie, which many people wouldn't have realised was a lie, and which would have given the impression that this was a great deal for everyone and it was just unfortunate that for their domestic historical political reasons the DUP couldn't stretch as far as supporting it.
A mediocre politician would have waffled, avoided the question and confused the issue. Most of them can almost do that in their sleep.
Johnson just told a stupid blatant lie that fooled no one.
But you think that must have been the astute thing to do because he "got away with it."
Notably some complain about smears and attacks - that is, even if it is not a smear they blame it.
The most interesting thing about him is that he is playing a character called "Boris" (not his actual name), the tousled hair and the ruffled clothes are all part of the schtick. It's an act of deflection to distract from the absence of substance. I also think that by over-emphasising his poshness by playing an exaggerated Berty Wooster character it somehow deflects from it, a bit like how Jimmy Saville dressed like a paedophile so that nobody suspected him of actually being one.
The key question is whether it is Johnson or Cummings who is really in charge. We will find out soon enough, I suppose.
And I don't find the metaphor helpful anyway. Strip away the baggage and what is left of Corbyn? You can't be a Marxist anti westerner all your life without generating a lot of evidence of Marxist anti western behaviour.
If you are in favour of independence you already vote for the SNP.
But if you are against independence you either vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour depending on your ideology.
So Labour risks losing all the left anti-independence vote, that 19% will be redistributed to the Liberals and some few to the Conservatives.
Some of the Greater Manchester towns e.g. Bury are doing better than others e.g. Rochdale. However, it is jarring to go into the city centre from the towns and see the complete rebuild since 1996. Some councils got regeneration right, and some blew it very badly.
Rochdale and Oldham are the starkest examples of this, where the councils have pissed money up the wall on numerous failed town centre regenerations, whilst everyone got in their cars and drove to the Trafford Centre.
Amazed Rochdale didn't fall to the Tories as well, Tony Lloyd has a large personal vote though. Labour were down double digits. Continuity Corbyn isn't going to cut it.
Spot on, better management & regulation is the way forward.
Some of us are old enough to remember the pre-privatization World War 2 rolling stock, the trains that never ran on time in between the numerous ASLEF strikes,not to mention the expensive tickets.
It really says something when the flagship British Rail service was known by its users as 'Inter Shitty'
It's just that the minority that do want it are consentrated in one single party.
All that would make sense if we didn't have FPTP. We have realistically only had a choice of 2 parties for a century.
The system makes it almost impossible for an En Marche, 5 Star, Podemos movement to succeed here.
Anyone who doesn't want the Tories is ultimately going to have to get behind Labour. That is the reality and sooner or later they will. Guys like you just need to hope Momentum isn't still at the helm when they do.
We were all given assurances by the then leader of the SNP that it was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 and we accepted his word. End of.
- he had a "brain fart" , as even the cleverest do occasionally, especially when tired and running on adrenalin
- he knew that most British people don't really care about Northern Ireland, as long as they're not blowing each other up
- he was trying to bounce the DUP leadership on board.
On balance, I favour the first explanation. But I generally prefer pick-up rather than conspiracy. I suppose we'll never know.
Demographically and economically they are mostly on the average for the region, that's why they usually have marginals.
And majorities still don't want a Second EU referendum.
Edit: oh, do you mean SNP-to-Lab switchers?
Those outer layers are moving in and out of the SNP orbit depending on the national state of the parties.
If all 3 parties max out nationally at the same election then the SNP should go down to around 35%.
But if the SNP loses power it will lose it's opportunists too.
The SNP's power is based on the budget it controlls.
Cf the "did Magna Carta die in vain" democraceee fanboys dipping into government by autocratic fiat when they need Cameron's dickheaded "we will enact what you decide" to convert the referendum into a mandatory one.
Conservative 42.1% +19.3
SNP 31.5% -10.2
Labour 20.6% -6.2
Liberal Democrats 5.8% +1.2
Majority 4,752 10.6 n/a
Turnout 44,556 68.6 -2.7
Conservative gain from SNP Swing +14.8
I was mainly thinking about Kinnock who did have the balls to tell his party and Militant some home truths. Blair did have some courage in his early days as leader, less so as PM, I agree.
That Kinnock speech remains for me one of the outstanding political moments. Labour badly needs someone like him now. But I don't see who that might be.
Nandy seems to actually get it - and she seems articulate and intelligent.
Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour did a really bad job when in charge of their local authorities.
2019 SNP 45%
Identical result.
a) a referendum on EU membership was possible
b) voting to leave the UK also entailed leaving the EU
I do have more sympathy with the argument that an SNP majority in Holyrood (NB Holyrood, not Westminster) is cause for a fresh referendum. Unfortunately, that's precluded by the SNP promise not to hold another referendum for a generation...
I fear though that the infection is too widespread.
To those who want to see a sane labour party emerge from this wreckage, and I really do, they have to find a way of isolating and destroying momentum.
Many are putting forward their ideal candidates but none of them will stand a chance as long as RLB is the heir apparent backed by the tens of thousands momentum members
I do not see another labour government this decade and even beyond
This must be an opportunity for the Lib Dems to dust themselves off and step into the ground so comprehensively vacated by labour
And to be fair, so was Blair.
So do I.